Take care, canthover, those profiles are not JAR Cat A if it is not certified that way. They are OEI profiles, and probably useful, but Cat A is a whole raft of requirements, not just a performance spec. For example, the required design virtues must be met, including isolation of engines and fuel, so that the probability of a dual engine failure is remote. A twin can have fantastic OEI performance and be woefully short of Cat A. This is not to say that the 109K2 is that way, just that it could be. Call the local tech rep and see what Agusta says about this.

canthover,

Nick is confirming what was said earlier in the thread - frankly, I am surprised the the K2 is not certificated to Category A. Once again please do not assume even a (genuine) elevated helipad procedure can be performed on a helideck - for the reasons stated earlier.

As was said previously, to operate in PC1 or PC2 in Europe the aircraft must be certificated to Category A - the K2 might meet the equivalent safety permitted under JAR-OPS 3 but that would have to be established on a point-by-point basis (and be accepted by the Authority). Nick's point about the fantastic OEI performance could have been written about the Bell 427 and hence, as said earlier, the advent of the B 429 - which will be certificated to Appendix C of FAR/JAR 27.

Jim

I have edited the earlier post on this page about the application (or not) of performance regulations (FARs and JARs).

Jim

Helicopter performance classification
 

what does helicopter performance classification mean and how does it fit into Category of operation. Ex- Perf cl 1,2 or 3 and Cat A or Cat B operation. Kindly elaborate with suitable examples.

I was wondering how V1 was calculated. Say in a SK76 C+. I have seen charts in paper work but don't know how they were made.

s92 QUERY
 

Hello! This thread may now be dead but I have a question about the CAT A data provided by the manufacturer that someone may be able to answer.
In my type (S92) we have a graph for clear area MTOM/LM CAT A. We also have graphs for OEI ROC as well as first and second segment OEI climb performance. My question is: Does the TOM gained from the the clear area graph guarantee a 150fpm at 1000'.
From what I can see the MAUM from the OEI ROC and 2nd segment graphs doesn't tally with that gained from the clear area graph.

Instruktør
 

Your instructor should be able to answer that question?:ugh:

The S92 has variable Vtoss based Cat A MTOMs, with a maximum graphed value of 63 KIAS (although distance calculations go up to 70 KIAS). Below 63 KIAS Vtoss the aircraft is first sector limited and thus the RoC in the second sector (200-100') will be in excess of 150 fpm - assuming the MTOM is as per the WAT graph, and you are not using a Vtoss with a lower TOM. Above 63 KIAS Vtoss the aircraft is second sector limited and so the first sector RoC will be in excess of 100 fpm.

Basically....

Anybody want a short presentation on the subject please PM.:ok:

Thanks for the replies, 212 man if I understand you correctly the basic WAT graph should guarantee both first and second segment minimum OEI ROC. If this is the case then the forward climb perf graph (fig 4.12 and fig 4.13) should tally with the basic WAT graph and give in excess of minimum required ROC. This is not he case for icing conditions when applying the supplied penalties.
Chopper in ABZ, I am interested in hearing your answer.

Redhanded, can you give some figures to look at?

Pressure alt at airfield: 0 ft, oat: 0'c, nil wind, ovc 003. Assuming icing conditions from 300ft on takeoff, max Vtoss.
Basic WAT graph fig 4.9 using anti ice and RIPS gives MTOM 26200lbs

Fwd climb performance graph 4.13 gives 25000 lbs for a 150 fpm climb OEI having applied the 440 fpm penalty. This agrees with fig 4.11 second segment graph.

This is a huge difference and led me to question what the basic WAT graph is guaranteeing as far as CAT A requirements are concerned. Some crews are relying completely on fig 4.9 even though it appears not to cover second segment requirements.

Interesting! I've just looked (albeit briefly) and, if anything, I think the penalty in Fig 4.13 should be greater than you state, as there is also an 85 ft/min penalty for Anti-Ice ON. Going into the graph with 675 ft/min (to give 150 ft/min) then gives about 24,000 lb.

Not having operated with RIPS a/c or in an icing environment (with this type) I haven't paid much attention to the subject.

Not sure I understand that - surely all crews are using the same planning methods (which hopefully doesn't involve using a printed graph)?

Actually Anti ice is included in the Rips penalty but yes it looks like quite a reduction due to icing. So untill I can find out more about these graphs I will take the most limiting to be sure I have OEI performance.

Hi Redhanded

It's a long time since i operated a helicopter with any kind of icing clearance and back then, we had to have a 500' positive air temperature band above MSA (or sea surface) before we could operate in icing conditions. Has this restriction gone with the advent of more advanced helicopter anti-icing systems?

Cheers

TeeS

Hi, we have no such rules anymore in my company at least. It's pretty unusual to have icing conditions on the deck but it's normal from 300 ft up. We have a pretty effective icing kit on the aircraft but as you can probably tell the performance penalties are high and we aren't used to having performance limitations on this beast in this climate!

On the subject of Performance Class and calls, does anyone know how the UK CivSAR situation is panning out and where, if anywhere, the latest draught of CAP 999 goes with this?

EMS singles by night
 

If class 3 is not allowed to operate at night how has FAA approved night operations for EMS singles