Helicopter down in East River, NYC
That didnt concern me. I was more concerned that some would assume the safety pin was the pin that needed to be sheared.
They have their issues, but ask any operator who switched. The bigger the fleet the bigger the cost reduction. There are very few aircraft in the GOM with OEM floats where Apical is an option. Plus OEM floats don't have an external liferaft option which most customers spec out in bids. Apical does and it is installed in each middle float. But this Astar didn't have the raft option.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The apical pull handle is required to be offset to the right of the cyclic by 32 degrees. It cannot be installed in line with the cyclic allowing a reaching out with your fingers of your right hand and doing a one hand activation. If you have the handle setup that way then when you pull it the handle will hit the back of the cyclic grip prior to moving the cables far enough to blow the bottles. The handle needs to be pulled past the cyclic grip and that cannot be done with just your right hand. We give the pilots the chance to blow the floats every 3 years on the ships that have the apical floats and have experimented to see if the one hand grab would work and it did not. I like the zodiac gas cartridge fired floats for the best activation mechanism, that one can be installed inline with the grip and a reach out and pull with a few fingers works great.
I should add that some of the guys with bigger hands could reach and pull and try and force it by the side of the cyclic using only their right hand, but the smaller pilots, their fingers could just barely reach out to the tips of the handle. This is reference the newer style curved handle.
I should add that some of the guys with bigger hands could reach and pull and try and force it by the side of the cyclic using only their right hand, but the smaller pilots, their fingers could just barely reach out to the tips of the handle. This is reference the newer style curved handle.
The apical pull handle is required to be offset to the right of the cyclic by 32 degrees. It cannot be installed in line with the cyclic allowing a reaching out with your fingers of your right hand and doing a one hand activation. If you have the handle setup that way then when you pull it the handle will hit the back of the cyclic grip prior to moving the cables far enough to blow the bottles. The handle needs to be pulled past the cyclic grip and that cannot be done with just your right hand. We give the pilots the chance to blow the floats every 3 years on the ships that have the apical floats and have experimented to see if the one hand grab would work and it did not.
Last edited by John Eacott; 1st Apr 2018 at 08:28.
Because the Twin Lobby didn't take long to point out that an OEI in a twin wouldn't have necessitated an autorotation landing, and that the flight would successfully have continued despite the low standards of
- aircraft design
- harness design
- risk assessment
- safety management system
- pax briefing
- pax behaviour and handling thereof in flight
- float deployment
- airmanship
- piloting skills
that were possibly evidenced in the mishap flight. Further suggesting that disallowing singles for charter flights would make the world a better place.
Whereas 'the other side' could argue that:
- If some of the above would have been applied, the flight would not have taken place in the first place (e.g., risk assessment).
- If some of the above would have been better managed, the (single) engine would not have stopped (e.g., pax behaviour in flight, design of the FCL, plexiglass cover shielding vital levers from unruly pax).
- Improving on the balance of the above would have increased the chances of a successful forced landing and evacuation of the aircraft.
- aircraft design
- harness design
- risk assessment
- safety management system
- pax briefing
- pax behaviour and handling thereof in flight
- float deployment
- airmanship
- piloting skills
that were possibly evidenced in the mishap flight. Further suggesting that disallowing singles for charter flights would make the world a better place.
Whereas 'the other side' could argue that:
- If some of the above would have been applied, the flight would not have taken place in the first place (e.g., risk assessment).
- If some of the above would have been better managed, the (single) engine would not have stopped (e.g., pax behaviour in flight, design of the FCL, plexiglass cover shielding vital levers from unruly pax).
- Improving on the balance of the above would have increased the chances of a successful forced landing and evacuation of the aircraft.
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 1st Apr 2018 at 10:57. Reason: Grammar
Further suggesting that disallowing singles for charter flights would make the world a better place.
Engine redundancy is a wonderful thing however it is thoroughly unhelpful in protecting from fuel starvation, whether accidental or through poor management, not to mention a long chain of human errors.
The Clutha accident certainly was an example of that.
When a perfectly operational engine goes for a swim, without addressing the primary causes of the accident, you could take as many engines with you as you'd like but there would still be far too many holes in the cheese left aligned.
You can't fix poor judgement and bad planning with redundancy alone.
The Clutha accident certainly was an example of that.
When a perfectly operational engine goes for a swim, without addressing the primary causes of the accident, you could take as many engines with you as you'd like but there would still be far too many holes in the cheese left aligned.
You can't fix poor judgement and bad planning with redundancy alone.
What do we think of an independent, seat belt release contraption that is activated by immersion?
Only when aircraft is inverted or after 15 seconds of the device being immersed? (to conform to established training drills that in some circumstances, belt should only be released once aircraft is fully inverted)
Probably a patent already out there that could do the job?
In this accident, did reports suggest that divers discovered that some passengers had not even released their lap belts?
A side note, if they were using a standard clasp release, I wonder if in the rush to belt themselves back in, any of the passengers twisted the belt 180 degrees so the clasp release was compressed against the body?
In such a position it is difficult to pull release mechanism.
That this can occur is yet another gotcha with assuming untrained folk will do what is expected during an emergency.
Mjb
Only when aircraft is inverted or after 15 seconds of the device being immersed? (to conform to established training drills that in some circumstances, belt should only be released once aircraft is fully inverted)
Probably a patent already out there that could do the job?
In this accident, did reports suggest that divers discovered that some passengers had not even released their lap belts?
A side note, if they were using a standard clasp release, I wonder if in the rush to belt themselves back in, any of the passengers twisted the belt 180 degrees so the clasp release was compressed against the body?
In such a position it is difficult to pull release mechanism.
That this can occur is yet another gotcha with assuming untrained folk will do what is expected during an emergency.
Mjb
In respect to twins versus singles...
Without any records of hours flown per mission type the industry tends to react to misadventures rather than the successes, because the success are largely hidden.
An example, even with its previous fuel tank arrangement the safest aircraft for aerial filming was (up to 2013) the R44 News, with nil fatalities or serious injury for camera crew.
A safety success story! so can we learn why this is so and then apply it to other aircraft types and operations?
Mjb
Without any records of hours flown per mission type the industry tends to react to misadventures rather than the successes, because the success are largely hidden.
An example, even with its previous fuel tank arrangement the safest aircraft for aerial filming was (up to 2013) the R44 News, with nil fatalities or serious injury for camera crew.
A safety success story! so can we learn why this is so and then apply it to other aircraft types and operations?
Mjb
I wasn't aware of that, comes as a surprise. More accustomed to reading about R-flimsycopters falling out of the sky.
What do we think of an independent, seat belt release contraption that is activated by immersion?
Only when aircraft is inverted or after 15 seconds of the device being immersed? (to conform to established training drills that in some circumstances, belt should only be released once aircraft is fully inverted)
Probably a patent already out there that could do the job?
In this accident, did reports suggest that divers discovered that some passengers had not even released their lap belts?
Mjb
Only when aircraft is inverted or after 15 seconds of the device being immersed? (to conform to established training drills that in some circumstances, belt should only be released once aircraft is fully inverted)
Probably a patent already out there that could do the job?
In this accident, did reports suggest that divers discovered that some passengers had not even released their lap belts?
Mjb
Why do you ask?
Of the scores of pilots I’ve flown with, only one has included in the preflight briefing a reminder to double check that the belt hasn’t become twisted and the clasp is back to front.
Particularly relevant if the camera “crew” in the back are in the habit of loosening or release their belts during flight.
Mjb
Of the scores of pilots I’ve flown with, only one has included in the preflight briefing a reminder to double check that the belt hasn’t become twisted and the clasp is back to front.
Particularly relevant if the camera “crew” in the back are in the habit of loosening or release their belts during flight.
Mjb
gulliBell,
Who would have thought that seatbelts in passenger cars would be fitted with a simple device that fires an explosive charge to tighten the belt?
Yes I know the economies of scale are radically different, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.
Mjb
Who would have thought that seatbelts in passenger cars would be fitted with a simple device that fires an explosive charge to tighten the belt?
Yes I know the economies of scale are radically different, but if you don’t ask you don’t get.
Mjb
Mick
I think the point that the two previous posters were trying to make is that having an automatic seatbelt release for ditching is a bad idea because the absolute last thing you want is for that belt to release before you're ready for it.
You need to be secure in your seat to identify your exit and then you need to be able to jettison and push the exit clear - it's incredibly difficult to do that if you're not still strapped into your seat - believe me - I've tried it in the dunker - All that happens is you push the window and it stays still while you float away. Hence the question of if you've ever done HUET.
As for a "timed release" as you suggest - I'm sorry but that won't work since this is not a fixed duration event. You need to be secure for as long as it takes you to stabilise and jettison. Then deliberately release your harness and go out your exit.
Automatically releasing all the pax, say, fifteen seconds after inversion will just turn the inside of the cabin into a wresting arena and everyone will drown. (and it will make the bodies more difficult to find!).
OH
I think the point that the two previous posters were trying to make is that having an automatic seatbelt release for ditching is a bad idea because the absolute last thing you want is for that belt to release before you're ready for it.
You need to be secure in your seat to identify your exit and then you need to be able to jettison and push the exit clear - it's incredibly difficult to do that if you're not still strapped into your seat - believe me - I've tried it in the dunker - All that happens is you push the window and it stays still while you float away. Hence the question of if you've ever done HUET.
As for a "timed release" as you suggest - I'm sorry but that won't work since this is not a fixed duration event. You need to be secure for as long as it takes you to stabilise and jettison. Then deliberately release your harness and go out your exit.
Automatically releasing all the pax, say, fifteen seconds after inversion will just turn the inside of the cabin into a wresting arena and everyone will drown. (and it will make the bodies more difficult to find!).
OH