James ,
Whats the cruise speed ?, I hear you have to give a jet ranger a good head start . Either that or put the kettle on while you are waiting for him to arrive!;)

R44 POH Amendment
 

I've just received by sea-snail mail the April 2003 POH changes. Please allow me some slack here in case you 44 instructors have already handled this one.

There is an operations change as to when to switch on the governor and to leave it on when shutting down.

I have a feeling that starting and performing the start procedures with the governor on might allow a student to let the RPM's creep up to 80% at which point the governor will kick in and give him the "flying" RPM. This could be a big surprise.

The shutting down procedure that I had been taught, different from the original POH was, on stable touchdown, with the collective down, switch off the governor and wind off the throttle to cool down RPM. Then apply the frictions. That was on the basis that if you get the RPM's below 80% then the aircraft will not fly and you are unlikely to move it around as you reach forward to wind on the cyclic friction. (Think slippery surfaces here; ice, mud, whatever).

As to leaving the governor on during start and shut down, I just wonder if a pilot might not notice the RPM's creeping up during the warm up and cool down. It does happen. If the governor kicks in at 80% it could spoil the entire day.

The new procedures are obviously safe, but does anyone know the philosophy behind the change in the procedures?

Why do Robinsons have a Guvnor switch anyway? It sure does'nt need one!

If Frank got rid of the switch and put it on a breaker instead,
bye bye over-speeds. For training purposes, the breaker could be pulled to simulate a guvnor failure.

I've asked the factory this question on several occasions. :mad:

I don't fly any of Frank's products these days, but if you did not have a switch easily operable on the lever, how would you deal with a governor runaway failure? The governor on the Robbos seem to be pretty reliable, but any well-engineered system needs to enable the pilot to cope with failures.

You could always grab the twist grip, but you would then need a third hand to pull the CB to make things "safe".

If I understand the original question, then I see what you are getting at. It would be very easy for an inattentive pilot to let the RPM rise to 80% and then suddenly get flying RPM without warning - there have been a number of accidents involving early/inadvertent take-off of students/low-time pilots as it is. This would seem to me to make the problem worse.

I don't have easy access to the RHC paperwork - can anyone who does explain the reason behind the change?

I don't know why the changes have happened, but I'm terriffically sensitive to checking the governor after a minor distraction cost me £1000 insurance excess.

My understanding why RHC want governor on below 80% is to check for full and correct operation throughout the whole governed range. The checklists in the aircraft I fly have been amended - with CAA approval - to "increase to 100% RPM, governor on" and there's an optional throttle wiggle to test operation from about 97 to 105%.

As for leaving the governor on at shutdown - why ? Makes no sense to me. Is there any parallel with the turbine world ?

I'm guessing, but the only reason I can think of for leaving rthe governor on is so that you can't forget to put it on before flight and end up with an overspeed. Well-intentioned perhaps...but definitely not a good idea. Robbo drivers, how often have you pulled full carb heat to check it during start-up, and had the RPM go over 80% because you've got carb ice? I have, loads of times. And as a student, it's something you don't think about, until it happens. And you're doing most of your checks at 75% RPM, which makes it really easy to just wind up the throttle that little but too much; and maybe you close the throttle to check the needles separate, aren't sure that they really did, so what do you do...wind on a bit more throttle and start from slightly higher RPM....

Maybe there's a good reason for this change, but I definitely can't see it. and as many of you know, I'm pretty sensitive to the words "governor", "overspeed", and "RRPM", for much the same resons as The Nr Fairy. :eek:

Mr. Selfish, yes that is a worry. I am aware that we all become shorter as we grow older but maybe helicopters have the same problem.

Or is it a circumcision of the stinger that has lost us the four inches as the '44 came of age? Still popular in the States so I'm told...

As to the governor kicking in during start up procedures, I did have this once on a slippery surface in a light machine and we ended up 15 or so degrees from the original heading. It wouldn't fly with the collective down but I felt a bit of a twozzer for
allowing it.

I guess we shall get used to it, just need to teach different cautions.

Mr Robinson should now brace himself for a whole load of legal claims for false advertising, if the aircraft is indeed four inches shorter than advertised.

As we all know, "Happiness is a big chopper". :ok:

Hedski, thankfully your correct, Dublin is not that congested, in fact, if you really had to fly at 500ft, it would probably be enough to get out alive.

Steve, in one sense your right, money is not really an object for Sky but neither would it be for their sister station FOX news in the USA which do utilise R44's.

While in reality it may not be possible to reach ALL the stories with an R44, for a price tag that is around an eight of the 355. Mind the pennys and the pounds will mind themselves!

Then again, I slightly agree with you, Sky is a private corporation and why shouldn't they buy the best helicopter. I just have a problem with Police organisations (mainly here in Ireland) spending so much on just 2 helicopters when the R44 is really suitable and so much more affordable.

Captain Eagle, I suspect you are not familiar with european police ops. It is a different culture to that in the US.
If you really want to know why R44's are not capable of carrying out police ops in this environ, PM me and I'll tell you. I don't want to hijack this thread.

regards,
TC

Thanks TC.

I've split this off.

Shame to lose your opinions/experience on a PM when it will be of interest to many.

Heliport

Thanks Heliport :)

Me thinks they ( the Boys in Blu) may not like one engine, two engine make it much safer to chase speeding drivers with, especially in North Wales:rolleyes:

Certain Chief Policemen spend most of their funding chasing motorists, and ignore the bad guys and dope peddler's,rapists and muggers, but then who am I to complain, but it does all seem to point to the fact that certain PAS sections are underutilised! whilst other are always in the air.

Now, reaching for the cupboard where I keep my kevlar jacket, come on Tc don't miss this one:ouch:

I can't talk for the yanks, they operated helo's in the police role while we were still chasing crims in Zephyr 6's and Consuls:D

Until/Unless the CAA revise or change their remit, the rules will require police operators to fly twins if they wish to enjoy the exemptions agreed between the Home Office and the regulators.
The R44 is therefore automatically eliminated by default.

Thats the easy bit out of the way.

Since the police aviaton culture has matured, so too has the operational tasking and the way we perceive how the task should be conducted.

A 'standard' complement enjoys:

pilot / tactical commander / +1

We have just completed a paper on minimum crewing requirements for UK police air support units. It goes on to conclude that the above, is an absolute minimum for the majority of tasks expected from us. Especially at night, in pursuit of a stolen vehicle, or person on the move, for example. The pilot flies (!) the tactical commander delegates and the remaining observer shares this work load. One may be on camera, the other doing a commentary to the ground troops or command, together with checking the route along which the pursuit is going. An added extra, is the ubiquitous flight safety where, especially in busy airspace, an extra pair of eyes comes in handy :ok:

Add to all of the above, the following 'essential' police equipment for the modern force of today':
FLIR pod
Searchlight
Tracker stolen vehicle ident
Skyshout
Microwave down/up link
Video recording facilities
Moving Map
Police on board cockpit equipment (cameras/binos/maps/)
Survival gear (mae wests/ELT/Dinghy/Smokes/)
Police radio suite (currently 4+ radio heads, soon to change to all digital)

Sufficent fuel to stay on task for a reasonable time.

Then there is the requirement for additional tasking:

Carriage of firearms teams (flak jackets/ guns/ammo)
Carriage of specialist teams (bomb disposal/forensics/soco)
Carriage of paramedic equipment and or persons (on some units)

Speed is important, the ability to get to a job within 'x' minutes is common sense really. A chopper weighed down with all this drags the Vno down. The R44, I believe doesn't have too much of a top speed?

Overall, I hope you'll agree we are now looking at a substantial hike in helo size from that of the R44.
Your average police helo is driving around at between 2500 and 2850kg. Allowing him a little flex in payload.

Once we go above the 3000kg mark, new regs (FDR CVR etc)come into play and we don't want to go there...just yet!

I would say that the major difference between the europeans (Irish, Italians, German Uk etc) and the US, is that we cater for a greater spread of tasking, and are looking a little further into the future re: police ops.
Who knows what may be asked of the police force of the future:
SAR / EMS / Rapid roping / Winching / Long range ops.

My last para should incite some unrest amongst our pals across the water :E

The funny thing is, we buy our equipment with public money, the yanks (some states) get funded by claw back from the crims...and yet they still drive round in either war surplus rigs or mickey mouse R"" / R44's...:confused:

PS: There are very few AS355's left in the Uk for police ops, now. Most have upgraded to 902 / 135 with the odd ball in a 109
:uhoh:
These new generation a/c have relatively little down time, ours for example is 95% operational.

An R44 isn't sturdy enough to survive the rigours of a bobbies lightweight 100kg, size 14, good looks and charms
:ok: :ok:

Over to you

If whoever it was, was correct in saying that Ireland could have got eight aircraft for the price of two, there wouldn't be any need for the two aircraft to be specced up for every conceivable tasking, would there? You could have pairs specced up for individual sub-tasks, and use whichever was necessary for any particular shout. With a goodly number still available for use elsewhere.

If whoever it was, was correct in saying that Ireland could have got eight aircraft for the price of two.........


There is another item in this equasion ... the pilot.

Aircraft are VERY cheap - whether its a $25 OH58 or a £3.5M MD900.

What costs is the crew.... whether its one or two .... who can afford to put crews into EIGHT Robbos? That is before you pay for the maintainer..... they are still human and they cost more than the spares they fit.

This string - fascinating. I find the load requirements and the workload requirements of PAS difficult to understand - they appear to be asking the machine to do so many things. But perhaps that's because the darned thing costs so much to run, they have to find other areas to use budget - no doubt the "bomb disposal" requirement comes from a different budget to "chasing Welsh motorists doing 33.3mph in a 30mph limit."
I've heard that there are talks going on with regard to tri-service helicopters - police, fire, ambulance all under one rotor. No doubt the unions will slow down this idea.
I've often wondered why the fire service hasn't opted for a fire-fighting helicopter in urban locations - tall buildings etc. Something that can fire a foam bomb at a building has to be better than 3 engines with ladders & cranes that can't reach. (The London Fire Service can only reach as far as 10 stories........)
And think of the reduction in risk to manpower.

police helo's
 

Robbo,

presumably you would have to crew up several of those cheap Robbos with expensive crews as the one crew might be on another task!!

UK forces operate for significant periods of time over towns and cities, a lot of which is by night. Hence twins are essential and of course, more flexible in how they can be used compared to singles.

In the UK at least, public transport by night has required 2 engines since about '84 or '85 and police ops are public transport....albeit with some easements.

Therefore no point in even thinking of a Robbo or similar.

Take a good size single/twin turbine and you can have the capability to carry out several missions with one aircraft (FLIR, search, rescue, chases, fire, containments..etc).

Having one multi-mission capable aircraft is worth a whole bunch of small ones that can only do one mission.

There will never be a multi service public helo, because the three services would never agree on protocols, a/c fit, crewing, etc etc. Nightmare scenario:oh:

Re the (x) times little helos and using them for specific tasking. What would thunderbirds 4 (R44) role equipped for car pursuit, locally, do, if on its way home, there was a call for a covert action on a drugs boat just offshore, and 50 miles away? Ignore it because it doesn't have the right equipment on board and only has 30 mins fuel left! Thunderbird 3 (R22) is down for its cracking rotor blade check and thunderbird 1 (R44) can't get airborne in >40kts of wind! Thunderbird 2 (R44) isn't cleared for night ops because it only has one engine. So the crews of 1,2, and 3, all 9 of them are now being deployed force wide instead because of best value :sad:

I must take this opportunity to advise that the VAST majority (99.9%) of police helos DO NOT monitor cars for speeding - sledgehammer and walnut come to mind!
Bikers are a different game:E :E :E

Next.......................................