AS 350: "Hold my beer son and watch this!"

[aheoe26104]

Originally Posted by Fareastdriver

That doesn't mean to say it cannot do aerobatic manoeuvres. It just means that it is not certified to do them. When prototypes and early production machines are demonstrated by company test pilots they do a lot more then the one in this thread did to demonstrate what they are capable of if only to show how big a safety margin there is for normal operations.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread they have a more rigorous inspection programme but all pre-production machines have this anyway.

If something was possibly going to break they would fix it. Should one break without obvious damage like blade strikes or similar without any witnesses they could have a lot of explaining to do.

My position is that it is irrelevant - and I am willing to put money on it that a safety investigation into this by a reputable body will find the same. It is wrong and even if he executed the manoeuvre perfectly, this kind of behaviour kills - eventually.

[Fareastdriver]

I'm sure that the number killed flying a helicopter outside it's certification parameters is far outnumbered by pilots killed because they cannot handle one when it goes outside their narrow flying abilities.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by Fareastdriver

I'm sure that the number killed flying a helicopter outside it's certification parameters is far outnumbered by pilots killed because they cannot handle one when it goes outside their narrow flying abilities.

The answer is to train pilots to a level where they know how to fly the aircraft to the manufacturers' limits, but not to fly it beyond them.

[Rotorbee]

I am with aheoe26104. I think I know, which company it is and if this is true, they are neither test pilots nor military trained for such manoeuvres. They are just very high time pilots, who probably have done this kind of flying since the time of the Lama. If they do this all the time, the bean jar for some components empties faster. I have seen AS350 MRB unserviceable, because the ships were left out in the weather without tying the blades down. The constant up and down due to the light wind killed them. The owners were not aware, that this could happen. It is absolutely irrelevant, if Airbus does have maintenance instructions after a flight beyond the normal envelope. Wear and tear will show, that the ship was abused (hopefully early enough). It is also absolutely irrelevant, if Airbus has demonstrated even more extreme manoeuvres, because the test ships will have a much more rigorous maintenance, than production ships and Airbus will not fly the ships for hundreds of hours like that, just to show it can be done.
Probably they will be lucky and nothing happens, if not, the final report will show if the macho flying style was a factor.

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

Originally Posted by aheoe26104

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

is it an aerobatic manoeuvre? I think the camera angle theory has already been discussed. There's no onboard sensors to indicate angles or gforces.
where is that criteria? Who determines it?

where is Airbus' special inspection for one that enters aerobatic manoeuvres?

[[email protected]]

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out, it is because when an untrained pilot tries it, messes it up and then crashes, the manufacturer would be liable.

Helicopters get abused in for more 'legal' ways than this - being flown constantly at high AUM, VNE, in turbulent conditions, all of which are non-reportable (all within the RFM) and all of which degrade the components quicker than the TBO stated by the manufacturer who will assume a wider spectrum of usage.

[Fareastdriver]

As Boeing Vertol found out. When the BV234 was introduced into commercial operations on the North Sea the confidence in the aircraft was rock solid. Millions of hour in the US Army, Vietnam, all over the world.

Max cruise at max AUW and they were falling apart in six months.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out, it is because when an untrained pilot tries it, messes it up and then crashes, the manufacturer would be liable.

Helicopters get abused in for more 'legal' ways than this - being flown constantly at high AUM, VNE, in turbulent conditions, all of which are non-reportable (all within the RFM) and all of which degrade the components quicker than the TBO stated by the manufacturer who will assume a wider spectrum of usage.

If you buy a German car in Africa they remove a number of sportier options from the list because we are in a "rough road" country. The warranties they offer just don't last when treated roughly.
Civilian helicopters are no different.
When something unexpected happens the manufacturers are liable and it's next to impossible to trace the history back to a handful of bored high-hour pilots.
If you want to be chuck Aaron get a sponsorship from redbull.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Helicopters get abused in for more 'legal' ways than this - being flown constantly at high AUM, VNE, in turbulent conditions, all of which are non-reportable (all within the RFM) and all of which degrade the components quicker than the TBO stated by the manufacturer who will assume a wider spectrum of usage.

Exactly. Which is a very good reason not to try to stretch the envelope.

[SARWannabe]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out, it is because when an untrained pilot tries it, messes it up and then crashes, the manufacturer would be liable.

Errrr because they have to flight test the allowable envelope and go through the whole certification process... Clearly they haven’t tested the longevity of the parts when people mishandle more experimental manoeuvres.

I think you’ve had a bit too much sauce - you normally have a strong and arguable point. The logic that it MAY have been conducted by an experienced pilot and MAY not have over stressed any parts because he may have been trained by the military, and therefore is ok is BS. And I think you know it. We have to operate to the lowest common denominator here, boring as it is, and if they certify it for aero-manoeuvres it would have to be able to wothstand badly handled ones.

There is every likelihood this could have stressed parts beyond their certified limits - without mast-moment & G data recording we’ll never know. If someone were to certify a helicopter for aeros i’d expect them to measure record such values, and add extra maint inspections, so before I take my family it it I can tell whether Oldy Boldy has performed a crab style well perfectly executed Cuban roll, or a chewed up Cuban cigar. You simply cannot reasonably defend that clearly operating outside the approved flight envelope is fine just because you think you can do so in a manner that probably won’t damage it.

[AAKEE]

Quote:
Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

Originally Posted by [email protected]

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out,

That should be easy ro sort out; certification requirements. I’m quite sure that there is no category for other than ”normal” in FAR27. Aerobatic category wount be find there, I guess. I dont know but I guess the FM for large transportation fixed wing aircraft (FAR25) also need to have the ”Aerobatic manouvers prohibited”
For the record, if my memory don’t fail, even the civil standard RFM för Bo105 says aerobatic manouvers prohibited. Thats not a ’capable’ issue but certification.
The military authorithies that did produce a own Flight Manual might have left that part out of the manual.

As said before, the normal regulations doesnt cover aerobatics with standard helos, which means the helo isnt certified and the pilot is not (per definition) trained and capable of such manouvers. That makes it illegal.
Also said before it doesnt need to be unsafe. The aviation authority might/would/have-to say its unsafe if a mil trained Bo105 pilot performs the manouvers he is trained on in a civil Bo105 without the proper approval.

[[email protected]]

I think you’ve had a bit too much sauce - you normally have a strong and arguable point. The logic that it MAY have been conducted by an experienced pilot and MAY not have over stressed any parts because he may have been trained by the military, and therefore is ok is BS. And I think you know it. We have to operate to the lowest common denominator here, boring as it is, and if they certify it for aero-manoeuvres it would have to be able to wothstand badly handled ones.

No, just trying to provide a counterpoint to the idea that a wingover is any different from a steep turn, or a crop-spraying return to target or some of the manoeuvres mustering pilots do in far less capable aircraft. A helo manufacturer is never going to jump through the hoops for an aerobatic certification since the target market would be tiny and not worth the cost. It's also much easier to over-engineer a fixed wing for aeros since it is just the structure and not all the rotables that suffer.

I have repeated that I do not condone his actions in this case and I get the whole 'keep inside the RFM limits piece' (it's not rocket science) but too many on here want to hang, draw and quarter the pilot in the video based on one clip and no knowledge of him, the aircraft configuration, the actual G or AoB he reached or, frankly any quantitative information.

[nigelh]

Beautifully back tracked manoeuvre Crab !!!

[[email protected]]

Not really Nige - plenty here are convinced that he overstressed the aircraft which will inevitably cause a failure downstream and that he should have declared the overstress and had the aircraft inspected and grounded himself.

Now, if we had seen a video of the same pilot executing a level, steep turn to get to the cliff, would there have been such outrage?

A sustained 45 degree AoB turn is 1.4G and a 60 degree bank turn is 2G - both well within the RFM but both would do far more damage if poorly flown - there are no limits on rate of application of pitch or AoB in RFMs and that is where the stress is put on the airframe, especially the twisting on the tail boom with the mass of the TR and TRGB on the end of it.

Would the outrage brigade be calling for the same censure of a pilot who regularly uses steep turn for positioning (and possibly some fun)?

Despite the definitions of aerobatic manouevres, we are not talking about rolls, loops, pedal or Tq turns here - just a wingover............

[nigelh]

Crab ... I think you are purposefully missing the point most are making . They are not saying he overstressed the aircraft or that he should have it grounded !!!! You have set your stall out and are not going to back down for anyone . Just ask yourself the question ..... if my daughters new boyfriend came to pick her up on his motorbike and pulled a wheelie all down the drive ...would you
1) Be impressed at his skill and think your daughter would be very safe
2) Think ...what a penis , I don’t want my daughter travelling with him .
And there is the point .... a well executed wheelie is not necessarily dangerous or bad for the bike ......but it is very often both !!!

[dClbydalpha]

nigelh I think some people are still on the path of "stressing" the aircraft looking at recent posts, hence Crab's re-iteration.

There is so little information about this video, so few facts, I would not want to condemn the pilot on what we have in front of us.

The video captured the manouevre from a spectacular point of view. More importantly it seemed to predict exactly where the aircraft would appear and what it would do, without hesitation. Either incredibly fortunate for the camera man ... or they were in on it.

If it was a pre-briefed requested manoeuvre does that make a difference?

If my daughter requested her boyfriend wheelie away so she could film it, then my reaction would be different than if he just did it spontaneously.

[aheoe26104]

OK, OK, I relent.

There is nothing wrong with this manoeuvre and I will from this point on be happy to have my family collected by this gentleman and flying ace and total model of a professional pilot and any other such as him in any aircraft that may have been honoured by similarly gifted God's Gift to Aviation "walk-on Water's" from this day forward.

And also admit that I have been wrong to go off on social media about this matter, , , and be quiet on my son's funeral when he tried something similar as displaying his "superior" flying skills at every possible impromptu opportunity it being so highly regarded by absolute professional and lifelong shining examples to us mere lowly pretender pilots only just struggling to stay alive in this mysterious industry for only 36 years.

I stand to be corrected!

[[email protected]]

Did he have pax on board????? It doesn't look like it since it appears he was going in for a pickup.

Very different if he had had done it with pax on board so the motorbike wheelie analogy is wasted.

This is all about context and if he flew the manoeuvre with only himself in the aircraft and didn't damage or stress the aircraft - what exactly is the issue???????

[Bell_ringer]

Captain Crustacean, you are correct. This is about context.
It's a civilian aircraft under civilian regulations.
The pilot's skill, training and personality is irrelevant as are the laws of physics and design envelope of the squirrel.
What makes anyone capable is not purely their credentials nor history but how they conduct themselves within the framework that they have been authorized.
This is not the military nor a military demo.
He does not need to be hung, drawn nor quartered but he needs a slap on the back of the head for deciding that either his experience or level of boredom means that operational rules become optional.
(With respect for your vast experience and expertise)

[[email protected]]

Campanologist - you might find the modern military take a dim view of what is essentially flying indiscipline too I have recently attended a mil-run flight safety course as a refresher and had the Catterick Puma crash dissected at great length including listening to the CVR tape - it makes one's blood run cold.

This guy, at worst, needs a gentle re-education about levels of acceptable behaviour, he may work at a place where this is the norm and they have slipped into a poor culture.

As a reminder, the OP started off with this as a jackstall (servo transparency) issue and much of the outrage was directed at how much damage he had done to the aircraft etc I think we have put that idea to bed now and it is just the choice to fly that manoeuvre that is at question.