Bear Grylls & Helicopters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear Grylls & Helicopters
Here are a few questions for the Rotorheads as I am fixed wing.
Bear Grylls, personally can't stand the man. Actually I questioned the Scout Association a year ago, as to whether as Chief Scout he was a good role model. I say that an as experienced mountaineer. Examples include freeclimbing, abseiling on a single rope, climbing and paragliding without a helmet, abseiling from a single dubious belay. Oh and the diregard for his own son's safety.
So here is the lastest from his TV series, a AS355NP (G-DCAM), bunch of school children on board, the helicopter hovers at around 50 to 100 feet above a lake and they have to jump out, I really do not see the point, why not use a swimming pool, so here are my questions, based on and engine failure at 100 feet, and a boat and children already in the water below.
(a) I am aware that the AS335 has two engines, so what would be the height loss in a 100ft hover?
(b) Would FADEC if fitted make a difference?
(c) If there is height loss, at that stage could the pilot transition enough to clear the people in the water.
(d) Would I be right in thinking the CAA has to approve this type of operation in terms of the pilot and aircraft is approved for dropping persons.
I ask this having been a witness to a similar incident at Lyme Regis as a child, where a Wessex 3 or 5 had an engine failure during a demonstration of a transfer between a lifeboat and the Wessex, luckily the agile Atlantic 21, moved out of way just in time. Not sure if the Wessex 3 or 5 were twin or single turbine aircraft.
Bear Grylls, personally can't stand the man. Actually I questioned the Scout Association a year ago, as to whether as Chief Scout he was a good role model. I say that an as experienced mountaineer. Examples include freeclimbing, abseiling on a single rope, climbing and paragliding without a helmet, abseiling from a single dubious belay. Oh and the diregard for his own son's safety.
So here is the lastest from his TV series, a AS355NP (G-DCAM), bunch of school children on board, the helicopter hovers at around 50 to 100 feet above a lake and they have to jump out, I really do not see the point, why not use a swimming pool, so here are my questions, based on and engine failure at 100 feet, and a boat and children already in the water below.
(a) I am aware that the AS335 has two engines, so what would be the height loss in a 100ft hover?
(b) Would FADEC if fitted make a difference?
(c) If there is height loss, at that stage could the pilot transition enough to clear the people in the water.
(d) Would I be right in thinking the CAA has to approve this type of operation in terms of the pilot and aircraft is approved for dropping persons.
I ask this having been a witness to a similar incident at Lyme Regis as a child, where a Wessex 3 or 5 had an engine failure during a demonstration of a transfer between a lifeboat and the Wessex, luckily the agile Atlantic 21, moved out of way just in time. Not sure if the Wessex 3 or 5 were twin or single turbine aircraft.
..the helicopter hovers at around 50 to 100 feet above a lake and they have to jump out, I really do not see the point, why not use a swimming pool...
Also, it would be difficult to fit a boat as well as children into any normal size swimming pool.
I suspect the height they dropped in from was a good bit less than 50' - that is a bloody long way to fall and the water will hurt a lot.
We used to deploy RN SAR divers from about 20' which was quite high enough for them.
If they were as high as you say then moving away from the overhead in the event of a single engine failure would be quite easy - standard hover height for SAR Sea King was 50' and you would always go forward and down into the water in the event of an engine failure if not safe OEI in the hover. This was practiced regularly in the simulator or, if you were lucky, on a Canadian lake on the Waterbirds course.
Wessex 3 was a single, Wessex 5 was a twin.
We used to deploy RN SAR divers from about 20' which was quite high enough for them.
If they were as high as you say then moving away from the overhead in the event of a single engine failure would be quite easy - standard hover height for SAR Sea King was 50' and you would always go forward and down into the water in the event of an engine failure if not safe OEI in the hover. This was practiced regularly in the simulator or, if you were lucky, on a Canadian lake on the Waterbirds course.
Wessex 3 was a single, Wessex 5 was a twin.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilotmike ... Sorry you pehaps missundertood me, I meant jumping off the high board, which in kit which is what we did at Cranditz.
Crab.... It was diificult to work out the drop height, I think it was more probably 20ft, but at a hover height of 50 ft, how much forward coluld you travel in the event of an engine failure before impacting.
I'm not sure if the Lyme Regis accident was a Wessex 3 or 5, but either way assuming an sile engine failure with one or two engines at say 50ft, spool up time, I guess you going down.
It would be interesting if anyone remembers the Lyme Regis accident, it was RN out of Portland, I have photos somewhere.
Crab.... It was diificult to work out the drop height, I think it was more probably 20ft, but at a hover height of 50 ft, how much forward coluld you travel in the event of an engine failure before impacting.
I'm not sure if the Lyme Regis accident was a Wessex 3 or 5, but either way assuming an sile engine failure with one or two engines at say 50ft, spool up time, I guess you going down.
It would be interesting if anyone remembers the Lyme Regis accident, it was RN out of Portland, I have photos somewhere.
A good example of using the wrong height and speed combination over water is here: http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...99_008-0_0.PDF
Homsap
You obviously can't be an experienced mountaineer if you think one shouldn't
a. free climbing, often far safer and quicker than being roped together
b. abseiling on a single rope, very common practice while mountaineering
c single point belay not ideal, but often done e.g. bolts in the Alps.
I have done a lot of flying for his company all I can say that the H and S is taken very very seriously.
I am afraid to say we are all getting a bit to risk adverse
You obviously can't be an experienced mountaineer if you think one shouldn't
a. free climbing, often far safer and quicker than being roped together
b. abseiling on a single rope, very common practice while mountaineering
c single point belay not ideal, but often done e.g. bolts in the Alps.
I have done a lot of flying for his company all I can say that the H and S is taken very very seriously.
I am afraid to say we are all getting a bit to risk adverse
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes500
Safety culture changes for example these days common sense most people wear cycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, the point I was making I do not think BG demonstrates best practice, and why put children at risk purely to boost his ego and TV entertainment. It is only a matter of time before BG causes a fatality.
Thank you assuming my level of experience as a mountaineer, in relation to your points:
(a) I see no point in free climbing, why take the risk of death or spending the rest of your life in a wheel chair. Scrambling is another thing.
(B) & (C) I have to say many year ago in my university days, I recall abseiling down the Cinque Dita from a single belay on a 11mm rope, as it was the only the recover the rope. It's not something I would do these days. To add when I last took my tenage son climbing it was two 9mm and multiple two plus belays. It nothing to do with health and safety, its more about common sense, good practice and a duty of care to my son, his siblings and mother.
But, Hughes500 the question I was asking was with an engine failure on a twin trubine helicopter in a hover can you maintain height????
Safety culture changes for example these days common sense most people wear cycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, the point I was making I do not think BG demonstrates best practice, and why put children at risk purely to boost his ego and TV entertainment. It is only a matter of time before BG causes a fatality.
Thank you assuming my level of experience as a mountaineer, in relation to your points:
(a) I see no point in free climbing, why take the risk of death or spending the rest of your life in a wheel chair. Scrambling is another thing.
(B) & (C) I have to say many year ago in my university days, I recall abseiling down the Cinque Dita from a single belay on a 11mm rope, as it was the only the recover the rope. It's not something I would do these days. To add when I last took my tenage son climbing it was two 9mm and multiple two plus belays. It nothing to do with health and safety, its more about common sense, good practice and a duty of care to my son, his siblings and mother.
But, Hughes500 the question I was asking was with an engine failure on a twin trubine helicopter in a hover can you maintain height????
To deal with the specific question.
It depends on the circumstances - weight and performance of the helicopter, conditions etc.
I"ve not seen the clip you describe but considering the way you describe it then it would certainly have been subject to at least one Permission from the CAA.
I'm certain that one of their requirements would have been the ability to safely fly away in the event of a single engine failure (taking into account the height above the water that was required for the task and any available drop-down), more likely it would require the helicopter to be flown at weights that allow single engine hover.
OH
It depends on the circumstances - weight and performance of the helicopter, conditions etc.
I"ve not seen the clip you describe but considering the way you describe it then it would certainly have been subject to at least one Permission from the CAA.
I'm certain that one of their requirements would have been the ability to safely fly away in the event of a single engine failure (taking into account the height above the water that was required for the task and any available drop-down), more likely it would require the helicopter to be flown at weights that allow single engine hover.
OH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overhawk ... Thank you for your reply, I'm not convinced with CAA approval based on past experience, as a fixed wing pilot, I wondered could you keep a rotary wing in a hover with both engines at max power. I accept your comments on performance, but I am still doubtfull how quickly if under any circumstances in the event of any engine faiiling you could prevent height loss.
I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.
I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.
Overhawk ... Thank you for your reply, I'm not convinced with CAA approval based on past experience, as a fixed wing pilot, I wondered could you keep a rotary wing in a hover with both engines at max power. I accept your comments on performance, but I am still doubtfull how quickly if under any circumstances in the event of any engine faiiling you could prevent height loss.
I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.
I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.
Change of underwear for all concerned was also called for.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Under a grey cloud
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homsap - whats the axe to grind? If they're filming for broadcast then the operator would be mad to have not acquired the relevant CAA permission for dropping an article from an aircraft, and possibly low flying of sorts. One of which (for what you describe) would be the ability to hover on one engine, which the 355NP (the most powerful 355 variant), with a relatively light fuel load, and a handful of light kids should be capable of doing. The drop down with single engine hover performance would be minimal, far less than the height loss in a typical single engine fly away. In the order of 10-15ft, if that.
I would RATHER my kids jumped out of a twin engine helicopter with single engine hover performance, and a safety team/boat waiting by, than the frequented cliff jumps of Thailand from 20m dubious rocky outcrops, with rocks to clear, and no safety team. That said - I let them jump in Thailand, and jumped with them, and we all went home happy because it's a lot of fun, and sometimes we do things that we deem acceptable that others may not. Unless he made your kids jump which would be entirely different I say let them do so long as they're all consenting and aware of the risks. Some kids race motorcross, some ride horses, some ski/snowboard/skate/bmx. I'd suggest all the above are more likely to end in pain, and I'm sure their risk assessment would show that.
I would RATHER my kids jumped out of a twin engine helicopter with single engine hover performance, and a safety team/boat waiting by, than the frequented cliff jumps of Thailand from 20m dubious rocky outcrops, with rocks to clear, and no safety team. That said - I let them jump in Thailand, and jumped with them, and we all went home happy because it's a lot of fun, and sometimes we do things that we deem acceptable that others may not. Unless he made your kids jump which would be entirely different I say let them do so long as they're all consenting and aware of the risks. Some kids race motorcross, some ride horses, some ski/snowboard/skate/bmx. I'd suggest all the above are more likely to end in pain, and I'm sure their risk assessment would show that.
Looks to me that Hughes500 has already answered the question indirectly, though are there any credits listed at the end of the show? If shown they sometimes list relavent permissions, etc.
.
.
SAR
Well said
Homsap, wasn't trying to be personal just pointing out that unfortunately we are becoming too risk adverse. Been a long time since I have been mountaineering perhaps things have changed. In my day it was way safer in the Alps to free climb on the less technical sections, sometimes speed overrides things. Having said that spent a very pleasant week at the bottom of the N face of the Eiger ,but the risk assessment was a bit extreme ( well the weather was ****e for a week, well that was my excuse ! )
As to helicopters I am sure you will see on this site a huge debate on single v twins machines. Each argument has its points, but if you believe the accident stats then 92% of all heli crashes are pilot error.
All I can say his team are very professional but they do want to push things out there, which I believe is a good thing. There is a risk to everything we do, if there wasn't where would the fun be !
Well said
Homsap, wasn't trying to be personal just pointing out that unfortunately we are becoming too risk adverse. Been a long time since I have been mountaineering perhaps things have changed. In my day it was way safer in the Alps to free climb on the less technical sections, sometimes speed overrides things. Having said that spent a very pleasant week at the bottom of the N face of the Eiger ,but the risk assessment was a bit extreme ( well the weather was ****e for a week, well that was my excuse ! )
As to helicopters I am sure you will see on this site a huge debate on single v twins machines. Each argument has its points, but if you believe the accident stats then 92% of all heli crashes are pilot error.
All I can say his team are very professional but they do want to push things out there, which I believe is a good thing. There is a risk to everything we do, if there wasn't where would the fun be !
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homespun
With your persistent belief about some height loss being inevitable in the event of an engine failure, it seems you might not understand the mechanics involved. If an engine failed in this AS355NP, height loss will not occur if the collective is not lowered - providing the remaining engine can produce enough power to maintain rotor rpm. And as others have said, it is very likely that it was operating at a weight that would allow this. So, if an engine failed and the pilot does nothing, all that would happen is that the other engine would double its previous power output to maintain the main rotor thrust. Now how long that much higher output can be maintained for is another matter, but it would typically be at least 10 seconds, which would give enough time for it to move away and gain airspeed to enable the collective to be lowered and the aircraft fly away.
With your persistent belief about some height loss being inevitable in the event of an engine failure, it seems you might not understand the mechanics involved. If an engine failed in this AS355NP, height loss will not occur if the collective is not lowered - providing the remaining engine can produce enough power to maintain rotor rpm. And as others have said, it is very likely that it was operating at a weight that would allow this. So, if an engine failed and the pilot does nothing, all that would happen is that the other engine would double its previous power output to maintain the main rotor thrust. Now how long that much higher output can be maintained for is another matter, but it would typically be at least 10 seconds, which would give enough time for it to move away and gain airspeed to enable the collective to be lowered and the aircraft fly away.
Overhawk ... Thank you for your reply, I'm not convinced with CAA approval based on past experience, as a fixed wing pilot, I wondered could you keep a rotary wing in a hover with both engines at max power. I accept your comments on performance, but I am still doubtfull how quickly if under any circumstances in the event of any engine faiiling you could prevent height loss.
I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.
I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.
The calculation of single engine hover performance is of critical importance to any operation like this and will be carefully calculated every flight.
As has been pointed out, it is an almost infinitely variable feast and no one day or job is the same as the next.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorspeed... Thank you for your cogent explanation, and I would like to think any CAA approval was on that basis and I sure the operator would not not act in a negligent way. I feel sure that the Wessex that I saw almost crash onto a lifeboat was a Mk 3 (single turbine).
In respect of SARwannabe, I might have an axe to grind, probably yes like the RNLI, read below.
"Bear Grylls criticised by RNLI after he leaves own son stranded on island rocks, TV survival expert unwittingly enlists RNLI in training exercise by leaving 11-year-old off coast of private island before inviting lifeboat crews to save him" (The Telegraph).
Regarding jumping off into the sea off cliffs, I agree it's probably more dangerous, as there are alot of 'unknowns', yet BG still does it in TV shows, without pointing the dangers, again this would not fit with the RNLI and lifeguard safety culture, they advise against it.
Getting back to my axe to grind with BG, in a sense he is an ideal person to head the UK Scout Association, although I would prefer Ray Mears, but he needs to lead by example, in terms of safety, because I am aware that on a local level the Scouts, Guides and cadet forces have very good safety culture. He clearly thinks he is still a reserve in the SAS, and there is a difference when working with children to the SAS.
In respect of SARwannabe, I might have an axe to grind, probably yes like the RNLI, read below.
"Bear Grylls criticised by RNLI after he leaves own son stranded on island rocks, TV survival expert unwittingly enlists RNLI in training exercise by leaving 11-year-old off coast of private island before inviting lifeboat crews to save him" (The Telegraph).
Regarding jumping off into the sea off cliffs, I agree it's probably more dangerous, as there are alot of 'unknowns', yet BG still does it in TV shows, without pointing the dangers, again this would not fit with the RNLI and lifeguard safety culture, they advise against it.
Getting back to my axe to grind with BG, in a sense he is an ideal person to head the UK Scout Association, although I would prefer Ray Mears, but he needs to lead by example, in terms of safety, because I am aware that on a local level the Scouts, Guides and cadet forces have very good safety culture. He clearly thinks he is still a reserve in the SAS, and there is a difference when working with children to the SAS.
A normal AS355 wouldn't be able to hover on one engine above a certain weight - and that weight is not generous (from my 2000hrs on type "F2"). An "N" model is quite alot of grunt again, so the single engine capability is better. As mentioned before, it depends on the day and number of persons onboard.
Secondly it would need to stay outside its dead man's curve (even for twins).
Finally - if it was me running this particulr evolution, I would want to inform and educate the parents about the risk of a helicopter hovering over inhospitable terrain with their loved ones onboard and obtain their 'informed consent' before taking it further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDj6oYaYrR8
You see, the problem with doing stunts like this is great if you have Bear Grylls outlook on life. But for Joe/Joanne public - they don't see the risk until their little one has been killed all for the sake of a TV stunt and some Zed list entertainer. Then the law suits start flying and someone gets sacked and the producer of the BBC says sorry in the Times and Bear Grylls skunks off radar for a few months and Mr and Mrs Smith try to understand (for the rest of their lives)where it all went wrong.
Two things in this order:
"Informed Consent" of all participants.
Aircraft Performance.
Secondly it would need to stay outside its dead man's curve (even for twins).
Finally - if it was me running this particulr evolution, I would want to inform and educate the parents about the risk of a helicopter hovering over inhospitable terrain with their loved ones onboard and obtain their 'informed consent' before taking it further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDj6oYaYrR8
You see, the problem with doing stunts like this is great if you have Bear Grylls outlook on life. But for Joe/Joanne public - they don't see the risk until their little one has been killed all for the sake of a TV stunt and some Zed list entertainer. Then the law suits start flying and someone gets sacked and the producer of the BBC says sorry in the Times and Bear Grylls skunks off radar for a few months and Mr and Mrs Smith try to understand (for the rest of their lives)where it all went wrong.
Two things in this order:
"Informed Consent" of all participants.
Aircraft Performance.
The NP has FADEC and VEMD which is different from the other models of the 355. It has a 2,5 minute OGE, OEI (take-off power) at about 1500ft in ISA and at about 2200kg's.
An empty basic ship weigh in at about 1500kg's so you'll have something to play around with.... unless they are unusually fat kids. 5pax on board and an hour worth of gas, should leave you with an AUW well under 2000kg.
Now, what is a bit intrieging is the fact that you go after an operator and question this perticular operation, when you have an axe to grind with BG and should direct your attention directly to him instead.
An empty basic ship weigh in at about 1500kg's so you'll have something to play around with.... unless they are unusually fat kids. 5pax on board and an hour worth of gas, should leave you with an AUW well under 2000kg.
Now, what is a bit intrieging is the fact that you go after an operator and question this perticular operation, when you have an axe to grind with BG and should direct your attention directly to him instead.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched Bear Grylls extract water from elephant dung as a demonstration, he then drank it.
I went on a course with Ray Mears. We caught and smoked trout, ate a salad made from local leaves with the trout, drank a juice he siphoned off a UK plant (glorious) used utensils he taught us to make. Slept like gods in superb shelters he taught us to build.
If I ever have to survive in the wild again I'm going with the chubby bloke, not the **** drinker.
Wish survival courses in the army had been run by Mr Mears rather than the part trained nutters who ran them while I was serving.
John
Somewhere I've got a photo about this that explained it all, but can't find it now.
I went on a course with Ray Mears. We caught and smoked trout, ate a salad made from local leaves with the trout, drank a juice he siphoned off a UK plant (glorious) used utensils he taught us to make. Slept like gods in superb shelters he taught us to build.
If I ever have to survive in the wild again I'm going with the chubby bloke, not the **** drinker.
Wish survival courses in the army had been run by Mr Mears rather than the part trained nutters who ran them while I was serving.
John
Somewhere I've got a photo about this that explained it all, but can't find it now.
TC
A risk assessment would have been done for the job !
Quite frankly the chances of an engine going bang and everyone getting killed is pretty remote. Probably a greater chance of being killed in the mini bus to the helicopter.
I am afraid to say it is the bloody ridiculous H and S we are going down will shortly mean we can't go out of our house, oh no wait a minute I will become obese and die early, what are we to do TC ???
A risk assessment would have been done for the job !
Quite frankly the chances of an engine going bang and everyone getting killed is pretty remote. Probably a greater chance of being killed in the mini bus to the helicopter.
I am afraid to say it is the bloody ridiculous H and S we are going down will shortly mean we can't go out of our house, oh no wait a minute I will become obese and die early, what are we to do TC ???