COASTGUARD AW189 WRECKS A BACK GARDEN
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Crab, in my experience of gaining permissions for congested area HLS operations, the CAA always require PC1.
Despite some “experts” on this forum claiming that no such permission is required, even for a single....
Despite some “experts” on this forum claiming that no such permission is required, even for a single....
Each brick piers sitting on a single concrete paver approx 500x250 mm.
Last edited by MightyGem; 12th Dec 2019 at 20:42.
The problem with mandating PC1 for hostile congested is that the aircraft performance and profile only represent part of the whole PC1 requirement. The other part relates to the HLS environment. I'm happy to be corrected here, but my understanding has been that there are requirements for the obstacle environment to fulfil PC1 to enable a successful flyaway post TDP. Elevated HLSs should, in theory, be ok (might depend on direction, natch), but a ground level HLS probably doesn't meet the requirements unless it has significant areas of wide open space.
This does beg the question as to why PC1 is required by the CAA, but in reality cannot actually be fulfilled. As an aside, does HEMS have a similar requirement?
This does beg the question as to why PC1 is required by the CAA, but in reality cannot actually be fulfilled. As an aside, does HEMS have a similar requirement?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Detgnome, the requirements of the obstacle (free) environment are normally taken into account in the PC1 profiles.
(I'm not qualified on this exact type but I don't see why there should be any major differences from others from the same manufacturer, which I am qualified to operate).
(I'm not qualified on this exact type but I don't see why there should be any major differences from others from the same manufacturer, which I am qualified to operate).
Last edited by ShyTorque; 13th Dec 2019 at 12:45. Reason: speelin'
Detgnome, the requirements of the obstacle (free) environment are normally taken into account in the PC1 profiles.
(I'm not qualified on this exact type but I don't see why there should be any major differences from others from the same manufacturer, which I am qualified to operate).
(I'm not qualified on this exact type but I don't see why there should be any major differences from others from the same manufacturer, which I am qualified to operate).
At present there is no confined area profile like other AW types. Hopefully with more shouting from customers the company will develop more profiles.
I admire the optimism but there still isn’t a PC1 clear area departure without trying to be a airliner!
Without big orders Leonardo are simply not willing to invest in new profiles.
LZ
Without big orders Leonardo are simply not willing to invest in new profiles.
LZ
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
LZ,
A running takeoff, then!
A running takeoff, then!
Detnome, you furnish the requirements quite accurately and then come to an odd conclusion.
There is a requirement for sufficient space for the continued take-off following an engine failure after TDP but that space does not have to be on the surface (or even within the bounds of the heliport).
It has to be above the level of the obstructions in the departure direction regardless if the heliport is on the surface or elevated.
That might be an issue for the AW189 with a TDP at 110ft and a dropdown just less than that, but not for other helicopter types which have variable TDPs.
Jim
There is a requirement for sufficient space for the continued take-off following an engine failure after TDP but that space does not have to be on the surface (or even within the bounds of the heliport).
It has to be above the level of the obstructions in the departure direction regardless if the heliport is on the surface or elevated.
That might be an issue for the AW189 with a TDP at 110ft and a dropdown just less than that, but not for other helicopter types which have variable TDPs.
Jim
Last edited by JimL; 15th Dec 2019 at 07:43.
Well explained JimL.
In our A139 HEMS operations, all the hospital landing sites that mandate PC1 are surveyed with the appropriate approach/departure tracks and (almost always variable) TDP's/LDP's published according to the obstacle data.
Doesn't the AW189 have variable TDP's and LDP's? That to me seems hugely restrictive operationally if its the case.
In our A139 HEMS operations, all the hospital landing sites that mandate PC1 are surveyed with the appropriate approach/departure tracks and (almost always variable) TDP's/LDP's published according to the obstacle data.
Doesn't the AW189 have variable TDP's and LDP's? That to me seems hugely restrictive operationally if its the case.
When I was a professional helicopter pilot you arrived at a landing site you looked round to see what effect your downwash would have on the surrounding area. With this in mind you would tailor you approach to ensure that there was minimum disruption to the local scenery. Departure was in the same vein. Pick a route, sort out which departure profile was safest and launch from there.
Nowadays pilots look at a departure chart,. ignore the terrain and create general mayhem.
Nowadays pilots look at a departure chart,. ignore the terrain and create general mayhem.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
FED,
that’s a rather offensive over-generalisation!
that’s a rather offensive over-generalisation!
When I was a professional helicopter pilot you arrived at a landing site you looked round to see what effect your downwash would have on the surrounding area. With this in mind you would tailor you approach to ensure that there was minimum disruption to the local scenery. Departure was in the same vein. Pick a route, sort out which departure profile was safest and launch from there.
Nowadays pilots look at a departure chart,. ignore the terrain and create general mayhem.
Nowadays pilots look at a departure chart,. ignore the terrain and create general mayhem.
’The older I get, the better I was.’
Never take your brain and common sense out of the equation.
There's a rule mandating PC1 at some places, but there's also a rule saying thou shalt not cause damage or hazard with your downwash. Pick your rule. For me, big chance of damage Vs very small chance of engine failure is an easy choice. I've lifted stuff with downwash and had the heart in the mouth moment wondering if it'll come through the main or tail rotor.
There's a rule mandating PC1 at some places, but there's also a rule saying thou shalt not cause damage or hazard with your downwash. Pick your rule. For me, big chance of damage Vs very small chance of engine failure is an easy choice. I've lifted stuff with downwash and had the heart in the mouth moment wondering if it'll come through the main or tail rotor.
