|
So where is AnFI and his "one is better than two" theory?
I'm betting a twin engined 407 would be back on terra firma, instead of waiting for a wave to tip it upside down! Classic photo though. Just classic :) |
Noooby,
A twin 407 would be a modification from the production 407 and would still be in flight test getting certified. 407's are singles.:confused: |
Safe landing done with no engine it would appear to me.
|
Originally Posted by Otterotor
(Post 8510773)
Noooby,
A twin 407 would be a modification from the production 407 and would still be in flight test getting certified. 407's are singles.:confused: However, do a quick search for 'AnFI' to see the point that noooby is making. :ok: |
Bravo - I think I see why some people support twins now. is it because they are too thick to understand that this is an example of why singles are a good idea.
This is a successful outcome further undermining the justification for twins. Is it worth having a gearbox failure to avoid this outcome - er? NO! Pay the performance penalty of lugging a spare engine/gbox/fuel around? All those extra "critical component.hours" incurred? All those crammed in pax tripping over their 'just in case' STASS, tangled in their lifejacket, cumbersome in their survival suits trying to get down a corridor to a window before the top heavy twin capsizes, at night, in a swell ! Doh! Gimme a calm auto in a 407 anyday. Get a grip noooby - an engine failure needs to have an x% chance of being fatal to justify the other downsides of a twin. x is probably in the region of 90. Jungle - twin Northsea - evens GOM - single Green 'auto-friendly grass' - ban twins There's no honest maths in this debate: corrupt |
AnFI
The NS is considered a hostile environment by OGP. It is hostile most of the time due water temperature, sea state, wind or a combination. Even the GOM can be hostile in winter. Jungle is always a hostile environment, at least you are more mainstream on jungle. You are entitled to your extreme views. You may class it as being an alternative thinker, good, the world needs them. However, you fly (until your engine quits) in the face of many years of experience, statistical analysis and industry practice. |
Anfi
Your analysis may add up from an aviators perspective, but PAX may prefer to stay in the air. Regardless of fact, PAX perception of safety ultimately pays your bills so the maths may need to factor this?? |
Term,
You consider a Bell 212/412 to be multiengine helicopters and if so then you are quite comfy flying over Jungle and the other "Hostile Terrain/Enviroments" as an Engine Failure will not put you into that which you do not wish to land in? |
No Boudreaux, anything with a C Box is not a twin.
|
Originally Posted by AnFI
(Post 8511072)
Bravo - I think I see why some people support twins now. is it because they are too thick to understand that this is an example of why singles are a good idea.
This is a successful outcome further undermining the justification for twins. An aircraft has ditched and you are saying that this is a good idea? A situation that might well have been avoided by having a second engine. That's genius. Just absolute genius. :rolleyes: Nurse - increase his medication, please. |
Yet they get flown like Twins. The other small problem in that concept is that main drive shaft.
|
Believe it or not, I am aware that a 407 is a single and that the closest that Bell came to a twin 407 was the 206LT, which was a disaster.
And while singles do have a place, I don't think that place is over water, with passengers who have no say in what they fly in. I also don't think that is a place for twin engined helicopters where the second engine just takes you a bit further to the crash site. |
Yiu forget the...forgettable 427. Yet another example of Bell engineering solidly planted between their buttocks
|
anything with a C Box is not a twin |
Sure Brian, I take your point but having additional single failure modes like a C Box in an old generation helicopter is not on my OK list.
|
Term
From a flight safety standpoint the 412 config has proven far safer in the past ten years than the S-92 and the Super Duper Puma. No one has died in a 412 due to loss of lube like Cougar S-92, maybe because Bell did not actively market it as having a run dry capability. Therefore when loss of oil pressure occurred the crews new to land as soon as they could. Even in these rare events the 412 transmissions lasted as long or longer than the 92 due to superior design. As to the Puma's their lack of drive system safety needs no repeating. The Sultan Note: One 412 that had a main shaft loss of drive was because they never torqued the bolts. Even then no one hurt. |
I made my comment just to remind folks that our use of terminology can present false impressions as despite the 212/412 design as both a Combining Gearbox and a Single Driveshaft from the C-Box to the Main Transmission, it has been a very reliable Twin Engined Helicopter.
The same can be said for the Chinook and Phrog with their Gearbox designs and Sync Shafts. When it comes to helicopters we will never have complete "redundancy" as there are too many "Single Point" failure points that will take the whole thing down. Those that see Single Engine Operations over water as being a "Sin" should really look at the Statistics and see if their position holds water. As in most things in the helicopter business there are combinations of factors that must be considered when making decisions about what type of aircraft to operate. Numbers of engines alone is not the full Monte. I would suggest the 212/412 series of helicopters are well proven and reliable although in the strict definition of a Single Engine Helicopter, they might well qualify. If One were to be very strict in One's thinking every helicopter has a combining gearbox in the form of the MGB which has an Engine input for each engine. Despite the individual Inputs which have Over Riding Clutches of some design, the single Transmission makes that Single Point for failure. |
quite right bob
Combining happens; topologically somewhere, how complex is a modern twin gearbox? 16 gears !? how many bearings? I think terminus and Bravo have a point; the reason people think they want twins is that they think they don't want to get wet if they have to land on water. Yes NS may be considered as 'hostile' because you might get your feet wet and chilly (once every 10,000 years), but it needs to be factored by the chance of being dead because your gearbox (etc) breaks. The logic doesn't add up, and the maths is FRAUDULENT!! You have to have a pretty good chance of death on engine fail to justify a twin. Should twins even be allowed day/VMC/non hostile environment: NO! It is stoopid. Over jungle, if it is a high proportion of the operating regime, then yes - but only just. Bravo something in your post made me want to look up the origin of the term; "as thick as monkey f@Łk" i don't know exactly what it was but google could not help me.... |
Those that see Single Engine Operations over water as being a "Sin" should really look at the Statistics and see if their position holds water. |
I do so love selective statistics to 'prove' a theory: let's compare the last 10 years of a 40 year-old transmission/airframe with the first 10 years of a 10 year-old transmission/airframe. Luckily I have been around long enough to know how the 204/205/212/412 worked out historically. I am sure we can ignore a few quill drive issues as being 'irritating noise' in that statistical analysis (literally).
|
OK, we can all quote statistics, bend the argument any way we choose and frankly, I am not going to engage in an argument with Bob or AnFI about singles versus twins. Even if I was convinced, my workforce would not be.
A "successful" ditching is considered a risk that requires mitigation in my world as we would have people in a life raft (or not) bobbing around in the water 200nm from the nearest facility or rescue and who have to be recovered. Perhaps we should tell them to treat it as an unexpected "cruise"? Of course, there are other things that can cause a ditching but wherever we can reduce the risk, we will do so and flying a single when a twin is available isn't even worth discussing. How about one-way fuel, if we miss the rig, we will just carry out a controlled ditching, hmm, I must rush upstairs and tell my bosses I have found them a way to save lots of $, I will have my desk packed so that I can leave straight away! Under your logic, a single engine A380 with a big parachute a la Cirrus would also be acceptable for trans pacific flights? Have fun debating it, I am not going to argue or offer my point of view anymore. I will stick with my heavy twin fleet thanks. |
TOD
Please enlighten us with what cobox or main transmission quill failure caused a fatal on a 412? The Sultan |
Hi Sultan,
I tell you what, if you can honestly say that the 412 transmission system has no commonality with the 2xx series of Bell helicopters and is an entirely new top-to-bottom drive train, then I withdraw my statement. I strongly suspect that there may be one or two 204- and 205- IPC numbers in that highly mature MAIN XMN, I could be wrong and would be delighted to hear about it! Regards TOD:ok: |
Originally Posted by AnFI
(Post 8513409)
Bravo something in your post made me want to look up the origin of the term; "as thick as monkey f@Łk" i don't know exactly what it was but google could not help me....
Anyway, enough. By the power of the ignore function, begone from my world. I suggest that everybody else does the same. A troll without an audience soon disappears back under his bridge. |
My basic argument is not so much the typical One versus Two Engines argument but rather only wished to point out that we sometimes confuse what really constitutes redundancy re Engines. At the same time we also must accept how reliable modern engines have become. Add in the kind of terrain we fly over and the climate then perhaps there is a place for single engine machines in commercial operations.
My personal inclination is to fly the aircraft that has the most engines but I do not have to pay the bills. If we look at the North Sea over the past Twenty Years.....has there been a fatality or ditching due to an simple engine failure? Yet, we have seen one complete transmission failure that killed 16 people, and multiple ditchings due to Transmission failures, Lightning strikes , and other causes. Even in the GOM, engine failures in a predominantly single engine fleet have been the least of the concerns when it comes to ditchings and accidents. Many very experienced Pilots have noted we spend far too much time training for Engine Failures when they are the least of our problems. So why do we always seem to consider "Engines" and Engine failure to be a place to focus so much attention and concern? Are we being UK/EASA Centric when we do? TOD, You do realize there is a Bell 47 Part Number on the 412's! |
Having had an engine failure (PT6 turbine let go) in the Brent Field, I was more than happy to have the other half of the Twin-Pac keep going to see me 'home'.
Having owned and operated singles and twins, there is a place for each in the world of helicopter aviation. Posturing on the Internet by pedants with little or no practical experience achieves the proverbial square root of FA. |
Hi Bob, one of the many things I love about the Bell line is their ability to recognise a good design and use it on the later models. I must confess I did not know of a B47 part number, though suspect the TR Pedals might fall into that category. Thanks for the info.
Regards TOD |
The Pedals will be a 204/205 part. The Door Hinges on the Tail Boom baggage door are/were 47 part numbers.
|
Bravo: "Nice. So as well as peddling your ridiculous agenda, you're now resorting to a few personal insults? Real classy. Don't you remember Heliport's mantra 'to play the ball, not the man"?"
Quite right Bravo, sorry totally inappropriate, i was feeling unduly grumpy, the phase popped into my head I have appealed for 'play the ball' here also and was finally worn down by the insults i face, possibly sometimes from you. "Ridiculous agenda" it is not. Two engined helicopter nonsense has IMO damaged the helicopter. It has been pedalled by the technically incompetant, using fraudulent analysis. Squaring 10^-5 was just fraud - there is no defense of it. Suggesting that safety should come second to avoiding the inconvenience of sitting in a dingy for one reason (engines) instead of another (gearboxes), is daft also. If someone wanted to take the performance expense of the twin solution and apply that to improve safety there would be far greater yields available. The over emphasis on a particular forced landing cause (engines) does not make sense. You must factor the reduced margins of all the other critical components, which is a price paid to avoid the engine cause. |
Let's talk about basic numbers then.
Can anyone show us the number of how many twins have either crashed, autorotated or even had to make an emergency landing (I am being generous here) because of engine failure versus the same statistic for singles. Also what are the numbers of twins that crashed with loss of life (we know of a few:(), for any of the transmission gearboxes failure, again versus the same statistic for singles? |
If we look at the North Sea over the past Twenty Years.....has there been a fatality or ditching due to an simple engine failure? |
Regulatory Authority absurdity
Not entirely on topic, so threads-drift permission> Thx. About 1981-ish (how old can I be? LOL) at AMH we were seeking the old 'Cat A' performance under CAA rules for departures from Battersea for the Mk1 A109.
It all got stymied by CAA (fancy that) so the pay-load wasn't worth the charter; their main concerns with the early A109 was reliability of the Allison 250-C20B. I did a hell of a lot research, and secured a ton of data from George Mayo, then boss of DDA Allison to prove the integrity of the engine How surprised (and disgusted) was I to receive a patronising letter from CAA advising ".... two engines thus provide twice the chance of an engine failure." How can anyone work with that distorted perspective? - VFR |
Here is the report of the flight.
NTSB Identification: CEN14IA270 This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators used data provided by various sources and may not have traveled in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft incident report.Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter Incident occurred Friday, May 30, 2014 in Eugene Island 182A, GM Aircraft: BELL 407, registration: N1197 Injuries: 6 Uninjured. On May 30, 2014, about 0945 central daylight time, a Bell model 407 helicopter, N1197, experienced a partial loss of engine power after lifting off from the Eugene 182A oil rig helipad. The pilot deployed the emergency flotation system and safely landed on the Gulf of Mexico. The pilot and five passengers were not injured. The helicopter was not damaged during the forced landing; however, it subsequently capsized and was substantially damaged during the recovery effort. The aircraft was registered to GM Leasing Company and operated by Westwind Helicopters Inc. under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 as an on-demand air taxi flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was not operated on a flight plan. The flight was originating at the time of the incident. The intended destination was the Abbeville Chris Crusta Memorial Airport (IYA), Abbeville, Louisiana. The pilot reported that after picking up into a hover, he applied forward cyclic to begin the takeoff. About the time that the helicopter reached the edge of the platform, the engine started to lose power. He nosed the helicopter forward to clear the platform. The low rotor speed horn came on and the warning light illuminated. The pilot inflated the floats, leveled the helicopter, and landed in the water. After shutting down the engine and securing the main rotor, the passengers and pilot exited the helicopter. |
.
One day ago, same operator ? ASN Aircraft incident 11-JUN-2014 Bell 206L-4 LongRanger IV USCG responds to downed helicopter in GOM -Upstreamonline.com Hope the end will be as happy as the previous one. . |
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Coast Guard is searching for two people on a helicopter that crashed and sank in the Gulf of Mexico about 60 miles south of Terrebonne Bay.
A news release says the crew of a nearby rig reported the crash of a private helicopter about 2:40 p.m. Wednesday. It says crew members launched a life raft but the aircraft sank before they could get to it. Petty Officer Carlos Vega says early reports did not give the age or sex of the two people on the helicopter, or say who owns the helicopter or the rig. He says the helicopter was a Bell model 206-LF, and went down near South Timbalier Block 317. A Coast Guard helicopter, airplane and cutter are searching, along with two good Samaritan vessels. |
|
Is there any reason for the cloak of secrecy that surround these GOM accidents?
Is there nothing that we can learn from them? Mars |
To which 'cloak of secrecy' are you referring? The accidents get some news coverage, but most of the TV stations don't bother to try to keep up with what happens offshore, nor do the newspapers. The accidents are covered to some extent, as shown by the links posted, and the eventual NTSB report is public. There will also be a quick blurb on the FAA's website, but the preliminary reports are often incorrect, and have little detail. I've never seen any accident covered up or kept secret, but I will agree that there is probably little news coverage of them across the pond. Blame your news organization, not the GOM.
|
Accidents in Nigeria seem to go awfully Hush Hush too.
Seen any details on the Super Puma Ditching, the 412 that disappeared one night, the 412 that crashed at the QIT, or a good discussion of the Hangar Fire? Nope, the GOM is no different than most places. Out of sight out of mind and usually just a Jet Ranger and one or two folks involved. Certainly not much to interest the Media. In Nigeria there is no Media of any quality to get involved. |
Target Zero ..... zero information!!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:42. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.