Flying loads out from between power lines
There you go Gordy - all seems perfectly safe, can't see why anyone would worry.............
Powerline Construction and Maintenance is very different from your basic picking up a pole and setting it somewhere else.
There have been a lot of incidents accidents due to both aircraft failures and pilot / line crew failures in the industry.
The mentality that’s involved in setting a 10,000lbs pole in the mountains is very different than that of a logging or fire mentality.
There have been a lot of incidents accidents due to both aircraft failures and pilot / line crew failures in the industry.
The mentality that’s involved in setting a 10,000lbs pole in the mountains is very different than that of a logging or fire mentality.
As a community we don’t seem to qualify our candidates correctly to work in the environment. Most utilities now have an audit similar to PGE that you need to hold a dummy 6 off the ground in a 10 foot circle and touch different elevated cones with the dummy and a certain hour requirement. Then your good to go…..
now that pilots goes off to his first job hanging marker balls at 1000feet AGL over moving water or snow or anything mid span and can’t figure out why he can’t do it and the linemen send him down the road.
At that early stage he/she would probably be fine for moving men and materials to/ from the towers over solid terrain.
now that pilots goes off to his first job hanging marker balls at 1000feet AGL over moving water or snow or anything mid span and can’t figure out why he can’t do it and the linemen send him down the road.
At that early stage he/she would probably be fine for moving men and materials to/ from the towers over solid terrain.
I agree CRM for every worker is extremely important especially with Helicopter companies that fly external linemen or observers ie work for the contractors, where you work with different individuals every day. There’s nothing worse than showing up to an LZ and having to show your lineman how to put his fly harness on.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
There you go Gordy - all seems perfectly safe, can't see why anyone would worry.............
I personally would not like to fly offshore at night in the weather that you have done so in the past---that risk is not acceptable to me with my skill set.
Therefore.....different horses for different courses.......
There's a reason the 500 is the aircraft of choice. It's also insurable in the most litigious country on earth. I'm sure someone's done the maths and come to the conclusion that an engine failure in an agile single is less likely than a wire strike in a larger twin. And cheaper of course.
A: Fly a twin.
Q: How do you double the chance of engine failure in a helicopter operation?
A: Fly a twin.
A: Fly a twin.
Which makes it twice as unlikely to suffer a complete power loss that would put you into the scenery.
Most opinions on Pprune do have significant "cultural differences" based on geography and thankfully they do come to light and some need to realise that.
In this operation "engine failure" is only part of the equation. For a comparison look at the fixed wing ETOPS where an "engine failure" can put you in a single a long way from the beach yet engine failure is not at the top of the list of items that need to be addressed by any stretch of the imagination.
With a risk assessment based on empirical data it is easy to see that it is not exactly "raining helicopters" out there due to engine failure.
If you use the analogy of "signal to noise ratio" and this very same forum I think you may find the biggest signal involved some apparently sophisticated types - EC135, EC225, S92 - none of which had "engine failures".
For the Luddites out there - you do realise that most of the main rotor components on the AS350 are made of plastic?
Where’s AnFi when you need him?
The stats regarding 1 v 2 engines and safety generally can be argued in different ways and yes, of course there are other failures that can bring down a helicopter - not least the seat/stick interface.
BUT, in the context of this thread where we are looking at hovering a helicopter for extended periods over obstacles, deep in the HV curve, with people either working directly under or attached to the aircraft - if you only have one engine and it fails, you are going in hard - no matter how good a pilot you are.
If you fly the same profile in a twin, below OEI hover max weight, you will have options and, more importantly, time to safely extricate yourself and protect the workers.
Does it cost more for a twin? yes, of course but the power companies, like oil companies, rely on operators cutting each others throats to get the contract and driving down safety margins to the minimum.
BUT, in the context of this thread where we are looking at hovering a helicopter for extended periods over obstacles, deep in the HV curve, with people either working directly under or attached to the aircraft - if you only have one engine and it fails, you are going in hard - no matter how good a pilot you are.
If you fly the same profile in a twin, below OEI hover max weight, you will have options and, more importantly, time to safely extricate yourself and protect the workers.
Does it cost more for a twin? yes, of course but the power companies, like oil companies, rely on operators cutting each others throats to get the contract and driving down safety margins to the minimum.
I'd be interested to know what the actual stats are for causes of power line accidents. Because if 20% are engine failure and 80% are 'other' - then even if all engine failure crashes were 'saved' by a second engine, the overall safety would only increase by 25%. But the cost would triple.
If insurance covers the difference and the flights are generally operated in remote locations by willing pilots - then who cares? Why not put safety third for once 😜
If insurance covers the difference and the flights are generally operated in remote locations by willing pilots - then who cares? Why not put safety third for once 😜
crab
I always read between your lines that an old pensioner explains the world how to fly helicopters.
…… And love your heroic stories, how you used to fly in the army. All times totally save, i‘m sure….. doing risk assessment bevor flying over areas where Taliban or other bad boys will shot you from the sky….for shure pretty much saver
And of course I learned one important thing after 20 years of flying.
Only old army, SAR and Offshore guys…..these are the only ones who invented flying….
But keep up the good work, turn on your office chair, judge the world, and explain to all the fools out there how it really works
I always read between your lines that an old pensioner explains the world how to fly helicopters.
…… And love your heroic stories, how you used to fly in the army. All times totally save, i‘m sure….. doing risk assessment bevor flying over areas where Taliban or other bad boys will shot you from the sky….for shure pretty much saver
And of course I learned one important thing after 20 years of flying.
Only old army, SAR and Offshore guys…..these are the only ones who invented flying….
But keep up the good work, turn on your office chair, judge the world, and explain to all the fools out there how it really works
Bellrider - as you may have realised with generations - each new one thinks they invented sex.
With pilots, each generation only learns that the old boys might know a thing or two when one of the younger ones screws something up and then they vaguely remember being warned about it by some old codger in the corner.
For clarity - I flew with the Army in a non-operational role as a QHI, I am ex-RAF SAR pilot by trade but I have flown a lot of hours in a variety of environments so if you feel that has no value then that's up to you.
I don't care if pilots feel they want to take additional risks to get the job done - just don't pretend it is safe to do so.
With pilots, each generation only learns that the old boys might know a thing or two when one of the younger ones screws something up and then they vaguely remember being warned about it by some old codger in the corner.
For clarity - I flew with the Army in a non-operational role as a QHI, I am ex-RAF SAR pilot by trade but I have flown a lot of hours in a variety of environments so if you feel that has no value then that's up to you.
I don't care if pilots feel they want to take additional risks to get the job done - just don't pretend it is safe to do so.
I wonder if there is a statistic of engine failures on twins.
And, engine failure in a twin does not take away 50% of available power-in modern twins it is considerably less, for 30 seconds might be even almost the same as running both engines, as transmission limits kick in.
Since I had long discussions with Mike Melia (the man that reinvented Massachusetts police Air support unit after tragic engine failure on their AS-350), I am clear about single vs. twin - I just cannot accept to spend days and days within H-V betting my life on a single RR250.
I did a lot of work on that engine so I think I know a few things about it and I would bet my life to it only occasionally and briefly (as I did in my 15 years of flight ops duties). Singles are used in this job primarily because they are affordable - and risks of decreasing profit against risks of losing the company in the aftermath of an accident are the driving force, with option of having an accident felt remote enough to be pushed aside. The tragedy of loss of life is not in the books/numbers. Only when it is experienced from up close and personal, minds sometimes change. Been there, seen that.
And, engine failure in a twin does not take away 50% of available power-in modern twins it is considerably less, for 30 seconds might be even almost the same as running both engines, as transmission limits kick in.
Since I had long discussions with Mike Melia (the man that reinvented Massachusetts police Air support unit after tragic engine failure on their AS-350), I am clear about single vs. twin - I just cannot accept to spend days and days within H-V betting my life on a single RR250.
I did a lot of work on that engine so I think I know a few things about it and I would bet my life to it only occasionally and briefly (as I did in my 15 years of flight ops duties). Singles are used in this job primarily because they are affordable - and risks of decreasing profit against risks of losing the company in the aftermath of an accident are the driving force, with option of having an accident felt remote enough to be pushed aside. The tragedy of loss of life is not in the books/numbers. Only when it is experienced from up close and personal, minds sometimes change. Been there, seen that.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There is always argument to be had in this forum about risk, and it is often focused on the old single vs twin thing. The fact is, every pilot and every operation has his/its own individual appetite for risk, and this can change with time.
A younger me spent plenty of time in the hover 1000-1500' AGL over a city centre at night in a single ( where, in the event of an emergency landing off-base, the locals would have relished the opportunity of kicking the crap out of me and putting a bullet in my head).
Would I do that now? Probably not. Not because I know better, but as the years pass I am in a different situation, and my assessment of acceptable risk vs return is different.
Its not productive to criticise others who see acceptable risk differently - only the ones who are deliberately breaking rules or playing fast & loose with other peoples lives through greed or negligence.
A younger me spent plenty of time in the hover 1000-1500' AGL over a city centre at night in a single ( where, in the event of an emergency landing off-base, the locals would have relished the opportunity of kicking the crap out of me and putting a bullet in my head).
Would I do that now? Probably not. Not because I know better, but as the years pass I am in a different situation, and my assessment of acceptable risk vs return is different.
Its not productive to criticise others who see acceptable risk differently - only the ones who are deliberately breaking rules or playing fast & loose with other peoples lives through greed or negligence.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: europe
Age: 38
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://helihub.com/2021/09/22/airbu...ack-up-system/
This article is a good addition to the discusion.
This article is a good addition to the discusion.
And would a major manufacturer be doing that and investing in the tech if there wasn't a real problem with using singles in high risk environments?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
And would a major manufacturer be doing that and investing in the tech if there wasn't a real problem with using singles in high risk environments?
Much like the Bell with the electrical multi-fan yaw control - improved redundancy, lower complexity, lower cost.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airframes that are optimised for external load work (for example, K-Max / Eagle Single 212) are single engine by design / modification.
Does this make them inherently unsafe or does the improved power / weight ratio make them better suited to their intended task and potentially safer if they can maintain an increased thrust margin?
True twin engine ‘safety’ for external load ops only exists when you are assured single engine OGE performance - the weight penalty to achieve this is probably so restrictive as to frequently make it functionally impractical (as well as economically unattractive).
Cost is undoubtedly one aspect of the equation, but actually being able to complete the task at hand is surely a consideration too?
Does this make them inherently unsafe or does the improved power / weight ratio make them better suited to their intended task and potentially safer if they can maintain an increased thrust margin?
True twin engine ‘safety’ for external load ops only exists when you are assured single engine OGE performance - the weight penalty to achieve this is probably so restrictive as to frequently make it functionally impractical (as well as economically unattractive).
Cost is undoubtedly one aspect of the equation, but actually being able to complete the task at hand is surely a consideration too?
You can have as big a thrust margin as you like on a single engine but when it quits your thrust margin is still zero, just like any other single.
I agree with 212man that hybrid is probably the way they will go - and if that offers options in an otherwise hazardous hover regime then great, safety has actually been increased rather than ignored.
I agree with 212man that hybrid is probably the way they will go - and if that offers options in an otherwise hazardous hover regime then great, safety has actually been increased rather than ignored.