Quick question from an ATCO: Has any form of RNAV approach with APV Baro or APV SBAS been introduced offshore or onshore for helos?

S76H, to clarify, I meant in a modern machine with FMS guidance to the FD/AP. not using V/S or using DME/distance calculations. I too was taught dive and drive.

M609, certainly onshore. My last operation introduced RNP0.3 LNAV/VNAV Aproaches to what had been a day VFR only heliport, just before I left.

Here's a picture on final approach - looks remarkably like an ILS :ok:
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps6d5439ed.jpg

From the Canadian investigation ...
I'll ask this same question again, with a rhetorical sense.

Are you flying the aircraft, or is the aircraft flying you? I've had vertigo a few times over water, in the dark, IMC/night. It's no fun at all.

Consider your habit patterns, and see if you can place what you usually do, and where things go wrong, to get to where that crew ended up.

What are you doing, what are you looking at, and where are your hands and feet .. as the aircraft's pitch attitude goes up?
Once there, it's probably not productive to ask "Why did you let it go up when you know that pitch attitude isn't the one you wanted" but "How do you get this nose attitude back to the proper one, now?" (UA training, here we come ... )

For those gents, the question to answer was: how did that pitch attitude get there?

Some of the symptoms (pitch and airspeed loss) look similar to the accident under discussion in this thread. The weather was poor ... were they in the process of a GA? Hopefully, we'll find out when the report goes final. (Granted, different aircraft models and different avionics systems).

212man
Very nice approaches both of them!
I enjoyed using them during our visitations last year from down the road.
Cheers and all the best.
Albatross.

I think, 212man, that it should be made clear to M609 that that "last operation" was not in Europe.

I also think your enthusiasm for CDFA doesn't take account of helicopters (or aircraft generally) which can't generate a pseudo glidepath. As you know, CDFA provides for "nominal vertical guidance", which can be no more than the standard ALT vs DME table - and therefore wouldn't have provided any extra protection to the accident we're discussing.

Recent......extract from Skybary:

"The term monitoring actually comes from the Latin root ‘Monere’ to warn and in the context of flight operations it is defined as:
The observation and interpretation of the flight path data, configuration status, automation modes and on-board systems appropriate to the phase of flight. It involves a cognitive comparison against the expected values, modes and procedures. It also includes observation of the other crew member and timely intervention in the event of deviation."


No hard and fast rules for when to intervene - common sense I guess - and please don't mention that there was a CCG in these modern times of self-awareness?

There go by the grace of God go I (?)

Probably true since the heli ran out of steam whilst still descending on the approach. But with dive and drive, the heli will have to level out at MDA, thus if coupled in 3 axis on VS and then ALT, a collective increase must be made on level off to prevent speed decay, whereas with CDFA there is no level sector.

Of course, not being coupled in 3 axes and especially not with VS / ALT is a good way to stay safe, but CDFA seems to be another string to that bow.

One has to wonder if, flying a pretty straightforward NPA is beyond some pilots's capabilities (thinking of the accident stats posted earlier, not this specific one), then how would they cope with the harder bit - getting in to the runway when suddenly becoming visual near the MAPt of, say, a VOR half way up the runway whilst still at the MDA and doing say 100kts.

I don't really see the argument against CDFA?

I'm not totally against CDFA, HC, I believe it is one of those things that does no harm, but I think doesn't necessarily do any good. Particularly for helicopters as opposed to FW.

I'm off now, but if people are still interested in 2 weeks, I will elaborate then.

The argument was 30 - 40% of CFIT accidents were from NPAs. This is true for FW but, while I'm away, let everyone find a helicopter CFIT from NPA to discuss. This one, yes, but that's not 30%. Be careful not to include visual manoeuvring following an NPA.

Why not use Vy or the minimum IMC airspeed for an approach and slow down well out on the final approach segment?

You are flying a helicopter remember.

Slowing below Vy seems a bad idea to me - on the back of the drag curve its very easy to lose too much speed. Then the regulatos will want to know what you will do if an engine fails in IMC below Vy, etc etc.

Personally I think even slowing to Vy can be too much if there is a significant crosswind, since the drift angle can become significant, resulting in pilots looking in the wrong place for the lights and possibly rendering one pilot unsighted at the moment its decided to go visual.

Yes, a helicopter can do both these things but the primary aim should be a safe landing somewhere, not a landing at the nominated destination but with reduced safety margin.

Aggressive visual manoeuvring at low speed in marginal weather (big flare to slow down) just seems a recipe for disaster, and for what benefit?

212 - that PFD screen is the worst ergonomic display I have ever seen. What aircraft is it from??? Or it is from a computer game.

It took me a full half hour to figure out where the everything was and still not clear where the RADALT and bug settings are on the display???

Why is the VSI not in the PFD scan area or can it be moved??

Is a Night Approach considered a NPA?? Certainly, when you look at CFIT in the offshore world, Night Approach, ARA and now an onshore Non Precision Approach are all incidents with similar hallmarks.

I assume you are joking when expressing your apparent ignorance about the type?

Regardless, I cannot but agree with you about the ergonomics and I have had many heated discussions with the OEM about them, that go back 7 years!:ugh::ugh:

212 Man no honestly I have no idea, is it the S92??

Apologies if I sound a bit I'm but I do not gt out much!!

DB - yes, it is.

Holy Molly I have heard some negatives about it before but never realised how bad it was. Looks like a Kid has gone nuts with a box of crayons!!

One technical Q though. The P. R. C. Indication on the AFCS annunciation strip, is shoung "Collective" in the RH AFCS Annunciator?? Which seems illogical.


DB

Depends what logic process you apply, I guess. EC seem to use the logic that the collective is physically on the left, but on the PFD you could equally argue that the functions to which it pertains - ALT, V/S and G/S - are all on the right.

One thing I introduced a while back, and tried to get the OEM to adopt too, is the use of the expression FMA - Flight Mode Annunciator. It is absolutely the standard expression used accross all the FW manufacturers, operators and other bodies (just look at the guidance on level busts, or NPAs). Every RW manufacturer has a different term for it (SAC call it the PFD header strip!) and consequently operators have no standard term too.

212 yes I agree. The FMA is a better term. Airbus usethis too. Try saying "AFCS Annuciation Strip" intheheat of battle or 100 times a day.

I am intrigued though about the Collective Mode logics.

In EC the logic. C. YR. P. are the VERTICAL. LATERAL. LONGITUDINAL. axis and the MODES are assigned to the relevant axis making it clear which flight control is doing what.

However, during AFCS systems based training, quality time spent demonstrating these logics and display presentations I think lies at the heart of understanding fully the operation of the AFCS.

I have an open mind but when the "C" is on the right my small swede is confused.

DB

Thousands of fixed wing pilots seem to manage this without coming to the hover, You may well be flying a helicopter but the approach is designed and certified for a fixed wing aircraft. Why make things difficult at Vy when there are thousands of metres of concrete at the end to stop it in.

FW drivers add 400m to the RVR/CMV when using the 'dive and drive' method. Except for circling approaches.