Helicopter down in East River, NYC
Originally Posted by [email protected]
212man - frankly I am somewhat surprised it took him so long!
just noticed the same on the Oz ditching thread..............
just noticed the same on the Oz ditching thread..............
... which (those certification requirements) would be largely coincidental to the fact that it is a twin-engine helicopter.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212 man
If it had been a twin then perhaps the flight would not have happened due to extra costs...
If it had been a twin there would have been certification requirements that would have removed a single point failure like this by introducing isolation and redundancy features.
A very valid point Nubian 
If people want the experience enough, they will pay the extra costs.
If people want the experience enough, they will pay the extra costs.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
A very valid point Nubian
If people want the experience enough, they will pay the extra costs.
If people want the experience enough, they will pay the extra costs.
A near 2x increase in tourist flight costs would not be good. Most already consider a scenic flight to be a huge luxury.
The issues here transcend the number of engines, the flight being quite surviveable with just one as the surviving pilot clearly demonstrates.
Last edited by Bell_ringer; 30th Mar 2018 at 12:07. Reason: Killed some grammar gremlins
Likely everybody would have survived if that Best-Buy pretend emergency floatation system worked. Failing that, if the passengers weren't shackled to the helicopter like they were they would have had a fighting chance. Aside from the pilot not continuing with that last engine start attempt.
The many holes in the layers of swiss cheese certainly lined up for this sad accident but it emphasises that if you compound one weakness with another (poor position of the fuel shutoff, rubbish harnesses, single engine over the water at dusk, poor flot gear design etc etc) you are asking for trouble.
Sadly, the justification for many of these weaknesses is cost and keeping people in a job. In this case the people with their jobs survived and those paying the 'cheap' price for the flight paid in the most expensive way possible.
Sadly, the justification for many of these weaknesses is cost and keeping people in a job. In this case the people with their jobs survived and those paying the 'cheap' price for the flight paid in the most expensive way possible.
NYON actually started their operation when it was NYonAir with AS355s and then got their own AS350B3s. Think they have three of them in NYC. When they are busy they cross hire the B2s from Liberty.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTHERS (including yourself apparently !!) are trying to make it a Twin/Single issue, when it is clearly not, your indignation at someone mentioning SE/ME applies to those that went before and mentioned it, I did the opposite.
The design of the engine controls, being snagable, unlike B3, B206, H369 etc (obviously nothing to do with number of engines.)
followed by a messy cockpit, allowing a pax to interfere with controls
followed by the choice of landing location
followed by giving up on the restart (may not have worked but no need to throw away the chance, may well have worked, a slow turning disk might compensate for the reduce floatation at the front right)
followed by floats not working
followed by (effectively) locking the pax in their seats
that is 6 reasons. whoever mentioned number of engines is clearly deluded and obsessed and missing the 6 elephants in the room.
212 as for the emotional part of this accident, it is shockingly gruesome, and like all fatal accidents there are people's lives damaged and it is all very sad.
So I agree with you to the extent that this is not an appropriate incident to try and force a link with engine number as OTHERS have done here (including rather hypopcritically yourself ???)
Twin debate, taken personal?
I am not sure why Anfi's posts attract so much ad hominem attacks? It must be abundantly clear that twins - all things being equal - are only marginally safer than singles.
Firstly because apart from engine failure, there are many other ways to crash, which are unrelated to number of engines you have (e.g., LOC, CFIT, wires, midair with bird, drone or other a/c, fuel starvation, other mechanical failure, all of which we have seen in NYC and elsewhere).
Secondly, because of the second engine twins are considerably more complex, heavier, less powerful and have less endurance. Added complexity ironically includes the handling of an OEI situation, which with logic certainly will happen in a twin twice as often as an engine-out in a single. As a consequence, pilot error, mechanical failures and fuel starvation (both due to fuel starvation, and fuel mismanagement) will occur more frequently in twins than in singles.
Given the high incidence of pilot error leading to accidents, and the (at least theoretically) improved capability of a multi-crew to make sound decisions as well as to deal with the increased workload in an emergency, adding a second pilot in front in my view is more beneficial than adding a second engine in the back.
I know for example about a large multi-national listed company whose board members (for insurance reasons) may fly whatever they want as long as there are two pilots. I have seen them charter a R44 Astro for airport transfers, the exec was reading his newspaper in the back, but yes, two comm pilots in front.
The mishap flight here is a case in point. From 2,000 feet AGL, a multi-crew should have been better able to decide where to auto-rotate to. More importantly, one pilot could have focussed on keeping the RRPM in the green, while the other could have dealt with pax management or deploying the floats (which in itself I read is a two-hand operation), etc.
Firstly because apart from engine failure, there are many other ways to crash, which are unrelated to number of engines you have (e.g., LOC, CFIT, wires, midair with bird, drone or other a/c, fuel starvation, other mechanical failure, all of which we have seen in NYC and elsewhere).
Secondly, because of the second engine twins are considerably more complex, heavier, less powerful and have less endurance. Added complexity ironically includes the handling of an OEI situation, which with logic certainly will happen in a twin twice as often as an engine-out in a single. As a consequence, pilot error, mechanical failures and fuel starvation (both due to fuel starvation, and fuel mismanagement) will occur more frequently in twins than in singles.
Given the high incidence of pilot error leading to accidents, and the (at least theoretically) improved capability of a multi-crew to make sound decisions as well as to deal with the increased workload in an emergency, adding a second pilot in front in my view is more beneficial than adding a second engine in the back.
I know for example about a large multi-national listed company whose board members (for insurance reasons) may fly whatever they want as long as there are two pilots. I have seen them charter a R44 Astro for airport transfers, the exec was reading his newspaper in the back, but yes, two comm pilots in front.
The mishap flight here is a case in point. From 2,000 feet AGL, a multi-crew should have been better able to decide where to auto-rotate to. More importantly, one pilot could have focussed on keeping the RRPM in the green, while the other could have dealt with pax management or deploying the floats (which in itself I read is a two-hand operation), etc.
The problem with two pilots is that the business inevitably becomes unviable.
I am not sure why Anfi's posts attract so much ad hominem attacks? It must be abundantly clear that twins - all things being equal - are only marginally safer than singles.
Firstly because apart from engine failure, there are many other ways to crash, which are unrelated to number of engines you have (e.g., LOC, CFIT, wires, midair with bird, drone or other a/c, fuel starvation, other mechanical failure, all of which we have seen in NYC and elsewhere).
Secondly, because of the second engine twins are considerably more complex, heavier, less powerful and have less endurance. Added complexity ironically includes the handling of an OEI situation, which with logic certainly will happen in a twin twice as often as an engine-out in a single. As a consequence, pilot error, mechanical failures and fuel starvation (both due to fuel starvation, and fuel mismanagement) will occur more frequently in twins than in singles.
Given the high incidence of pilot error leading to accidents, and the (at least theoretically) improved capability of a multi-crew to make sound decisions as well as to deal with the increased workload in an emergency, adding a second pilot in front in my view is more beneficial than adding a second engine in the back.
I know for example about a large multi-national listed company whose board members (for insurance reasons) may fly whatever they want as long as there are two pilots. I have seen them charter a R44 Astro for airport transfers, the exec was reading his newspaper in the back, but yes, two comm pilots in front.
The mishap flight here is a case in point. From 2,000 feet AGL, a multi-crew should have been better able to decide where to auto-rotate to. More importantly, one pilot could have focussed on keeping the RRPM in the green, while the other could have dealt with pax management or deploying the floats (which in itself I read is a two-hand operation), etc.
Firstly because apart from engine failure, there are many other ways to crash, which are unrelated to number of engines you have (e.g., LOC, CFIT, wires, midair with bird, drone or other a/c, fuel starvation, other mechanical failure, all of which we have seen in NYC and elsewhere).
Secondly, because of the second engine twins are considerably more complex, heavier, less powerful and have less endurance. Added complexity ironically includes the handling of an OEI situation, which with logic certainly will happen in a twin twice as often as an engine-out in a single. As a consequence, pilot error, mechanical failures and fuel starvation (both due to fuel starvation, and fuel mismanagement) will occur more frequently in twins than in singles.
Given the high incidence of pilot error leading to accidents, and the (at least theoretically) improved capability of a multi-crew to make sound decisions as well as to deal with the increased workload in an emergency, adding a second pilot in front in my view is more beneficial than adding a second engine in the back.
I know for example about a large multi-national listed company whose board members (for insurance reasons) may fly whatever they want as long as there are two pilots. I have seen them charter a R44 Astro for airport transfers, the exec was reading his newspaper in the back, but yes, two comm pilots in front.
The mishap flight here is a case in point. From 2,000 feet AGL, a multi-crew should have been better able to decide where to auto-rotate to. More importantly, one pilot could have focussed on keeping the RRPM in the green, while the other could have dealt with pax management or deploying the floats (which in itself I read is a two-hand operation), etc.
Except in this instance, absolutely guaranteed, if they had a 2nd engine they'd all still be alive. If they had a 2nd pilot - despite the obvious assumption that if they had 2 pilots up front then the fuel shut off value wouldn't have been accidentally closed by a passenger - they likely would have still ended up in the river with a half-arsed set of floats with the same end result.
I am not sure why Anfi's posts attract so much ad hominem attacks?
His first post here can be taken either at face value as an innocent comment or as a deliberate attempt to incite his favourite debate.
He has history with doing the latter.
If it really was the former then he only has himself to blame for people's reactions.
I'm still completely at a loss regarding risk assessment in this case. Single Pilot, single engine over water and with little to no suitable emergency landing spots on shore, harnesses that can't be disconnected by the Pax, a floatation system where the helicopter pilot needs to pull with ridiculous forces effectively necessitating to completely let go of the controls (aaargh).
I would dearly love to know how they constructed (and be it just for themselves so that they could sleep well at night) a case where any possible emergency wouldn't lead to a disaster.
Maybe it could help to check on what the actual activation procedure is for the Apical floats rather than what appears to be a misguided and inaccurate post?
Apical Rotorcraft Flight manual supplement AS350C, D, D1, B, B1, B2, B3 and BA
The actuation lever is on the cyclic and has a shear force of 12lbs, inflation takes 2-3 seconds.
The AS355 supplement gives better images with a similar system.
This one looks as if it is a photo of an AS350 even though it is from the AS355 FMS?
Both appear to be designed for one handed operation by the pilot's hand on the cyclic.
Apical Rotorcraft Flight manual supplement AS350C, D, D1, B, B1, B2, B3 and BA
The actuation lever is on the cyclic and has a shear force of 12lbs, inflation takes 2-3 seconds.
The AS355 supplement gives better images with a similar system.
This one looks as if it is a photo of an AS350 even though it is from the AS355 FMS?
Both appear to be designed for one handed operation by the pilot's hand on the cyclic.
With no cushions on the PIC seat and plastic on SIC seat, my guess they are installing/replacing the float bottle cables. Installing the shear pin ( "A" rivet) is one of the last things to do.