.... which doesn't mean to say that those with a high list count aren't!



toptobottom
Quote:
Haven't there been problems with the EC135 suffering from fuel gauge issues recently? I understood there to have been a number of complaints to EC about this. I appreciate tech logs should show correct uplift/consumption, but it wouldn't be the first time a helicopter had less fuel in it than the PIC thought and if the gauge wasn't reading correctly, it would hide the issue until too late. I believe both engines flamed out when they ran out of fuel before the Low Fuel warning lamp came on.


nice try ttb


Well, let's see then SS...

The following morning the same model flew at 500ft down the A5

by my flat. As if to say " we`re still here" for the viewers.

Obviously on a normal day it would operate like a bee.

We seem to have moved silently into a Stalinist regime but we pay for it.

Clutha benefit CD/ download
 

Firstly, mods, feel free to move if inappropriately placed or delete if its against forum rules with no hard feelings.

Some of the regular bands have gave their services for this free as a fundraiser to assist the families affected while insurers get their act together, this includes the pilot and crew.

The Clutha Sessions - The Official Clutha Benefit Album

Its available as a cd or download, I'm not personally involved, but am on the fringes of the Glasgow music scene and know the lads have bust a gut and gave a lot of their time to get this out in time.

Thanks for reading.

Again I'm not a journalist or aviation person, have just been trying to assist with local conditions and thought some of the guys may be interested.

Keep us informed please.

Just remember there are TWO separate circuits for low fuel warnings and NEITHER has failed during recent testing. They are not suspect.

There are two engine driven pumps, two prime pumps, two transfer pumps and two non return valves, but the way I see it if one of those valves sticks open on a switched off transfer pump (normal practice), then the other transfer pump will continue circulating fuel back into the main tank instead of the supply tanks. As the transfer pumps warning lights work on amps drawn, it would not illuminate!
Imagine the scenario. Pilot knows how much fuel should be remaining backed up by main tank fuel gauge. If as the AIB suggested there is 95 lt fuel remaining then in the cruise it is likely the rear transfer pump would run light and so be switched off. Forward pump would still be operating normally so no warnings there. But if the aft check valve is stuck open, that fuel is not getting to the supply tanks. Pilot gets low fuel warning but is puzzled because he knows there is fuel in there, he knows his transfer pump is working, does he believe that warning light? First engine flames out. Pilot has 2 or 3 mins to sort this out or land. If he can visualize his fuel system and tanks, he may just pull the nose up and get some fuel over the rear fence, turn on his rear transfer pump, anything to get some fuel in the supply tanks. Pumps cavitating, engine trying to re light.
All conjecture I know, but it's my best guess for a double engine flame out and stopped drive train. Also I do know they were doing extensive fuel system testing on a 135 next to our hanger on Friday!

Two and two make...........
The fault was found on a different aircraft and all this testing would still be happening if there had been NO crash.
It could be linked, but don't be led by a possible separate issue.

via the SUPPLY tank manifold which it has to go through to get to the check valve?

FUEL LOW is on the WARNING panel. It is not a CAUTION. Hence it is a RED light with a gong.

Quote
 

Michail Kalashnikov - (recently dead inventor of the AK47)

'Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple.'

or

to paraphrase: KISS

Ipso facto, helicopters are not useful.

Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
 

Lemain, I am coming to the same conclusion. Except one has to accept that in some circumstances helicopters are useful. Medivac, probably justifies the use of a complex but versatile aircraft. Just about everything else could be done fixed wing or other modes - always accepting it would be much less convenient! Is there any reason that police cannot use a simple a/c like c337, with a steady cam pod? Or a drone ? If ordnance can be dropped on the Taliban by drones operated by pilots based in Cambridgeshire why do the police need three crew to be airborne? This was a tragic accident but maybe it is time to review what is necessary against what is simply desirable?

What a load of tosh. The police do have aeroplanes, despite being cheaper, they still go for the expensive helicopter. I wonder why? Oh, and planes don't crash of course, or make the crew spew flying round in circles, or make small adjustments to see down the side of sheds, or look straight down when needed, or land and make arrests, or operate away from airfields, or land and pick up casualties when needed, or zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So here I am lying in a field having been shot by a simple AK47, don't think I would be too unhappy at the sight of a complex rotary coming to get me! And that comes from a fixed wing Jockey. Horses for courses I say

Fluid dynamics dictate that a liquid will take the path of least resistance. Uphill to the supply tanks or down hill and through stuck open check valve?
I just can't see why they plumb the two pumps into one supply instead of each pump having a teed supply to each tank.

Yup...I was trying to show that Kalashnikov's axiom was poor. Complex things have their uses; GPS is not exactly 'simple'. It's probably fair to say that the simplest solution to a problem will be the best...at least long-term but there is nothing to replace a rotary-wing aircraft for certain applications, at this time.

As with all complex pieces of kit, reliability will be lower than with simple kit. There are more devices, all required to work within specification at the same time and each device has its own failure rate. It is an engineering certainty that with comparable standards of quality in design and manufacture, the simpler machine will be more reliable.

Our issue is whether the reliability is acceptable for the job it does. i.e. risk/benefit. Surely there is no doubt that modern helicopters crewed by professionals are the salvation in many emergency situations? Medevac and SAR are the most immediately obvious however an effective umbrella of police cover serves to deter as well as intervene.

So the police operations might on paper not look as attractive as the other two but without that presence criminals would undoubtedly exploit the freedom to commit more crime. Much of it very harmful to life and limb of innocent people.

Surely the discussions here are not about whether or not we have police helicopters but whether they can be made safer. A reasonable discussion in the light of the Glasgow tragedy though dare I say a bit pointless until we know what actually caused it. Understandably pointless, though. People need to talk and debate these things; it is just human nature and harmless in itself as long as decisions are not made as a knee-jerk to an incident of unknown cause.

Confusion about simplicity... NO!
 

Lemain: "Ipso facto, helicopters are not useful"

NO NO NO - helicopters are fundamentally simple, VERY SIMPLE - (despite the determination of some to not understand them.) and so they are of course very useful.


Helicopters fundamentally do not have to have 'FUEL SYSTEMS' with 5 fuel tanks with 6 fuel pumps 3 guages 4 non-return valves, 5 warning lights etc etc


Please stop refering to a helicopter as a complex machine and an aeroplane as simple.

The helicopter is fundamentally simple.
The complexity in a helicopter comes from the way we implement the principle.

Hydraulics/actuators/pumps/check vales/second engines/stability sytems/ECUs/DECUs/EBCAU/ Combiner Gearboxes (more than 12 Gear wheels in some helicopters!! ('tonly needs 2!)) etc etc are complex but are not neccessary in a helicopter.

The complexity of a helicopter like this is the result of an ignorance/regulation feedback loop.


Lemain says:
"As with all complex pieces of kit, reliability will be lower than with simple kit. There are more devices, all required to work within specification at the same time and each device has its own failure rate. It is an engineering certainty that with comparable standards of quality in design and manufacture, the simpler machine will be more reliable."
Yes AGREE - strongly.... helicopters are simple and designers/regulators should be mindful of the damage done when uneccessay complexity is allowed into a helicopter.

This sort of ridiculous complexity is tragic - the explanations of the various foibles and intricate complexity of the fuel system of the EC135 herein is an embarassment.
It is quite clear that many pilots here don't understand it - which is self evidently dangerous.


"Keep It Simple Shtupid" or KISS?

AnFI

You quote the great Kelly Johnson but you fail to comprehend aviation design.

Kiss does apply in the basics, but after that one has to go on to consider safety issues.

And another Great, Charles Lindberg, chose to fly the Atlantic with only one engine, based on an early instance of FMEA reasoning.

It is the logic and math behind each and every FMEA that determines the level of air machine complexity. No argument, not even that of good engineering practice, is permitted to prevail.

FMEAs, oh how I hate them. Once you have one on your CV, every employer from whichever hemisphere, gives you another, another, and yet another of these brain-splitting tasks. Oh, the computer will do it all for you. Oh, no it won't! The final arithmetic is the easy bit, it is the up-front design failure mode analysis that hurts.

Please, by all means, go out and fly your airborne chariots about God's good sky, but argue not about design issues.

Thank you,
henry_crun

Munnyspinner, you troll.

Show me 19 crew change flights a day out of one airport that can be done by any other mode of transport efficiently except by helicopetr. You are probably a non pilot who really shouldnt partake in discussions in which you have no knowledge or experience.

Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
 

Helimutt, I fear you missed my point. But you have made a good one. The offshore oil industry is geared to the capacity provided by helicopters and there is currently no viable alternative. However, there are two Norwegian shipping companies looking into boat to rig transfers which are cheaper, safer and more comfortable for crews. I am have only ever flown fixed wing and think I will now stick to what I know. I respect the versatility offered by rotors particularly for medevac, SAR, slinging and essential crew transfer, but there are other areas where alternatives should be considered. This is perhaps the wrong thread for that debate.

Rig transfers by boat have been tried. They work in certain parts of the world where weather allows but in the north sea it wasnt exactly an overwhelming success. They are not safer, and the rig crews asf ar as I know do not like being on the boats then using a ladder to board the rig.
Helicopters do what they do because of their versatility.

Sorry for the thread drift.