Realm of the Possible - What Do We Need?
 

As I told my staff a few days ago, "The inmates are running the asylum", a ppruner is in a position to actually affect change. To that end, I solicit input from all quadrants of our field. I think there is much work remaining for us technically and operationally. Considering what we do, and how we do it, what should we expect in the next generation machine?

To discipline it, please try to state three things that are needed, either as new abilities, or fixes to existing shortfalls. Let the games begin!!

That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with, Mr. Lappos...

I think back to when the USCG Deepwater program started... it was envisioned as a total system performance specification, not as a hardware specification. Didn't quite work out as planned, but as a conceptual framework might be a starting point.

Should the industry step back from its categorization of light, medium, heavy for a minute (at least in the civil world, as an example) and see if there's another way to define performance categories? Perhaps as systems? EMS as a system of navigation, infrastructure, and a transport vehicle, as one example?

Much of what's been done in recent years, crashworthiness, modularization of components, advanced materials, failure rates, powerplants, and so on are all wonderful, but they're also incremental and evolutionary. I get the sense you're looking for revolutionary.

I suggest you order up a bunch of blank paper and pots of coffee.

Are you looking for airframe ideas Nick, or industry? Airframe first:

1. The information presented to the pilot should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. For instance: I am a fan of the 76C+ IIDS system in that I can use my peripheral vision to see the colours change and know what is happening while still keeping my eyes out.

2. Smarter TAWS/EGPWS/TCAD/TCAS/TAS/Radar/GPS/Moving Map systems that can portray important data, minimize the junk, and integrate into a single display vice several scattered around the cockpit.

3. (I know improvements have already been made but...) Make system reliability as important as component reliability. Not sure if I said that right. Let me explain my thinking here:

I have never had an "engine failure" in flight, which agrees with the statistics about engine (component) reliability that my employer, the customers, and the regulators keep quoting to me. Despite this I have autorotated to a highway in a 500, and done an OEI approach in a 76B and a 332L (ILS). (Engine failures during test flights/ground runs/ground operations are another topic) How is this possible?

The engine controls (FCU, power computer, EEC) have failed and left me in a position where I do not get normal power (maybe less, maybe more, not what I need). I care about the reliability of the entire system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough airframe, industry.

1. Give someone, ANYONE, the balls to stick to their principles when pushed/threatened to do stupid things that have potential for catastrophic results. I know it probably won't go wrong on this flight but I'm still alive after many unlikely incidents because I survived the first one and learned that, statistically, it will happen to one of us.

2. Yes, we need to train. Train like helicopter pilots doing helicopter things and if the sim can't duplicate what we need then get back in the helicopter and do it there! I love the training switch.

3. Set a standard, train to it, test for it, and enforce it. Stop lowering the bar whenever too many people have trouble getting across it. People who lie or misrepresent should be removed from the industry. Period. No padded logbooks, bogus PIC time, defects left until it is convenient, or pencil whipped checks with no consequences.

Nick

A simple one and very close to my own heart at the moment! A failsafe undercarriage warning system. Why have something that tells me the wheels aren't down when I'm at 200ft and possibly busy doing something else? Why not when I'm at 10ft - similar to a reverse parking sensor on a car? My thinking is that the 'below 200ft' system is all too easily encountered, especially during departure and therefore I get used to cancelling it without conscious thought. A last-ditched system that you only ever hear when you REALLY need it would be great.

I know it's probably trivial in the big scheme of things but you did ask........

JJ

PS. The guy who owned the machine I scraped asked 'Why don't the wheels come down automatically below a certain speed or height?' Seems like a fair question to me.

"2. Smarter TAWS/EGPWS/TCAD/TCAS/TAS/Radar/GPS/Moving Map systems that can portray important data, minimize the junk, and integrate into a single display vice several scattered around the cockpit."

Swamp76 is right on with this one. And the good news is that its already available as a variant of the Garmin 1000 system. Comprehensive functionality and in volume production that will keep costs /prices in line in a helicopter appplication. Just a "smiple matter of certification!" Most light helos are flying with antique avionics - the Honeywell KCS 55 compass system/HSI is close to 30 years old and a real boat anchor yet I see this being spec'd in new, relatively expensive helicopters everyday. A huge disconnect. Even a simple Cessna 172 comes with Garmin 1000 from the factory.

Although probably not high on your list, the light end of the turbine helo range needs to be brought into the modern age wrt systems and equipment, especially Bell products. Many pilots are dual rated and routinely accept the risk of flying IFR in single engine airplanes. Some of us believe that the risk is no greater ( and maybe actually lower) to fly IFR in single engine helicopters. Lets see a reasonably capable 4-5 pax IFR helicopter at around $3mm - in other words, about 10X the cost of a Cessna Skylane with Garmin 1000 avionics, a quite capable aircraft. Something on the idea of a slighly smaller 429 (with a "modern" cabin layout, ie no broom closet, and Garmin avionics/AP) would do the trick and should be profitable if the design leverages COTS parts. To meet this price point, I am assuming single engine, and thats OK. THis would be a worthy sucessor to the more than 40 year old 206/407 series.

EN48

Performance.

If you were in a crowded airline departure lounge awaiting your flight that you had paid for you would be highly choked off if the captain came in and said. "Sorry folks, it's a bit hot today and there's not much wind. I'm going to have to offload about twenty of you." It would not be accepted in the fixed wing world so why do we in the rotor wing department put up with it.
A helicopter with 4, 9, 12 19, or 24 seats should be able to fill those seats, anytime, anywhere.
We have new helicopters launched wtih enormous fanfares powered by engines designed thirty years ago. It's about time our engine manufacturers stared to produce engines with the improvements in power and SFC that our fixed wing brethren have enjoyed.

Seats that don't ruin pilots backs over the period of their career. Especially for the guys that have reach over and spend hours on end looking out the side window while flying utility. There has to be some smart guys out there that can figure out a way that these guys don't have to twist themselves into a knot to do their jobs.

My $10,000 Korean car has a better, more comfortable seat than the $10m helicopter I drive - and yes, it's a Bell.

That same car has an air conditioner that works really well, keeps the whole interior cool, unlike the $40,000 air con that was in my previous ride, a Sikorsky. That air con was perfectly serviceable, it just couldn't do the job.

My little car has a cabin full of airbags. Ain't none in any helicopter i know of.

Use your cross-pollination, Nick, and take that heads-up display from the Gulfstream and put it in every helicopter possible. Obviously there are fewer places available for the cameras and sensors, and even less space for the display unit, but you are a smart guy, make a smaller unit and find a spot.:p

Moving maps are all very well, but surely it's time to move onto a next generation system whereby you can see everything you need head up, something like flying with google earth airspace overlay...
It must be possible for airspace, terrain, obstacles, traffic etc to appear in your line of vision out of the aircraft in such a way to enhance your actual view.

Nick
Tamper proof time recording;
Either a memory chip or a visible clock. Having it visible is good and or electronically downloadable, it would save the onorous and duplicatory paper reporting that we do.
(M/r + Daily flight recording + pilot F/D sheets + personal log books) cut the middle two out.

Also, if it is linked to a yes / no of core value, would help greatly influence peoples decisions to cheat
tet

realm of the possible
 

Hi Nick,

how about some simplicity?

scrap all the G-Reg, F-reg, D-reg,

for the sake of pragmatism start with EU-Reg and N-Reg, with a goal of WW-Reg for all countries that are obliged to participate.

Then, scrap all the individual maintenance programs that various countries insist upon, and follow the aircraft manufacturers' maintenance schedules instead.

Big Ls.

reply to nick lappos
 

Am not sure I'm ready to write an essay yet but this is something that has been in my mind for some time, basically are many of the developments that we seen recently really necessary?
For instance we have seen developments in engines and their control, but nothing has been done to airframes designed 30 + years ago. The same problems are there as when they were first developed, and don't tell me the manufacturer is not aware. My jaundiced eye will tell me that this is a way of generating income, as is many of the developments mentioned above. Is FADEC really necessary? Or are modern engine developments making control of those too difficult for operators to contend with? I don't know, but I do suspect that it isn't. Am sure that most crews can control an engine within the parameters required.
EFIS/IIDS cockpits are fine but what happens when one indicator in that display goes awry? That's new display ! And there goes 10s of thousands instead of the change of a single instrument costing some considerably smaller amount.
MELs get longer and more down time (and more expense) is the result.
Surely alongside the developments that have gone on we should be asking are they all going in the right direction.
I write the above because I am not sure that we are getting it right, I don't wish to appear a Luddite but to my mind developments have to be to the whole and not just to small parts of it. When we see complete new projects then many of them are thought through completely, but developments of existing products are often not thought about, which is really what i am talking about. I suspect many of our manufacturer friends will understand me.
Would like to hear argument on this subject, lets hear from pilots, engineers, bean counters ( ! ) manufacturers, who-ever !
Nick Lappos, can I say you have opened a very interesting debate. I might not have expressed myself well but I think you can see where I'm coming from as some people would say !

..or 50 years in the case of Robinson's latest, which is unlikely to offer much improvement in terms of safety over the JetRanger.

From an avionics perspective, the simple single-pane digital cockpits found in many of the new crop of low-cost LSAs makes interesting comparison with our offices.

I/C

COST - COST - COST

1. Reduce weight and manufacturing costs. Twenty years ago I read about teethless gears that would drive through pressure/temperature "morphing" fluids that would act as adhesives when in gear contact and as lubricants when not. I'm still waiting for this. But it could reduce gearbox weight and cut gear production costs substantially.

2. Reduce engine specific fuel consumption. Again, twenty years ago we were talking about 50 lb. engines that would produce 500 hp with internal ceramic components running temps close to 2000. This should be the primary focus of the entire industry. It could make possible a twin that weighs less than a single.

3. IFR improvements...increased stability and control and known icing capability.

Here we go
 

Only three?

1) IFR: I believe and I hope that with your background of systems integration and experimentation at Sikorsky you are in a peculiar position to develop the ultimate low altitude IFR machine. As a machine I do not merely intend an airframe but a system including active obstacle warning and avoidance, integrated WAAS hands off GPS approaches, synthetic vision that would include night enhancement. These elements ought to be worked on with a team approach, where the team is also composed of the FAA, sadly as of today still completely in the dark (pun intended) regarding helicopter operations and their integration in the NAS structure.

2) ICING: not the sort that goes on the cake but rather the type that most affects flying in it, especially in a helicopter. Active deicing that can be reliably and affordably used all the way down to light twin airframes, thus giving us (almost) unrestricted IFR capabilities.

3) A PILOT-CENTRIC System: You've been there and you know as a pilot what a cockpit should be like, however here are my suggestion (even though someone has already presented some of them): seat alignment with flight controls and flight displays, FD and displays' controls within easy reach of pilot's hands and flight and systems information presented to the flight crew in an efficient fashion: right before you need it.

Everything else is evolution, unless you can come up with a 200+ kts airframe (one that we can fly with a helicopter rating) in which we can carry all the passengers how many those may be and no matter how much they weight, an ungodly amount of baggage and fuel for three days of flying or sorts.

Oh, did I forget to mention flight attendants, the cute and female type of course me being the stereotypical male helicopter pilot and latin on top...

But mainly thanks for giving us this opportunity.

Would be nice to see Bell come out with something that doesnt look like a bastardised version of something they built 50 years ago.

Bell 430 - Bastardised 222

Bell 412 - Bastardised UH1H

Bell 407 - Bastardised 206L

Good luck there Nick, its going to be a tough task to change their mentality :ugh:

:ok:

I would like to see a light utility/training helicopter to compete with the R-22/44. Something to replace the 206 designed using today's technology with simplicity, reliability, maintainability and (relatively) low cost of operation in mind.

Very important, and have somone like these guys .: RECARO :.do it
rather than trying to invent somthing new that cost $$$$$$$

Good point, Nick. Rather than look in all directions, I just looked in yours.

For the manufacturers:
i. Develop performance-based specifications for subcontractors and let 'em compete on an R&D and cost basis. It shouldn't much matter if those subs be for powerplants, drivetrains, airframes, avionics, or subsystems. Of course, it may change the way that engineering and specification is done at the manufacturer level. Since several folks have talked about seating, a company like Recaro, which has huge competencies in probably everything short of ejection seats probably is the way to go rather than the Bell model of a fiberglass box with a flotation cushion on the top as an afterthought.
ii. Return (in government programs... and good luck getting approval for this...) to a Skunk Works model for advanced R&D. Read Kelly Johnson's Bio FFI.
iii. Powertrain consumption efficiencies. I have no idea how or even if this can be done using turbines (or even if the engine is the place to look) because of specific fuel consumption, but something analogous to being able to reduce fuel consumption in the cruise while still having the reserve power to safely get off the ground with a full load of pax or cargo or a full hook. Good luck on this one too. I think of the automobile industry shutting down cylinders, though I know there is no direct parallel. Well, you asked for crazy ideas.

For operators:
i. Develop a better sense for the future of one's own industry. The manufacturers try to give the customer what is wanted, but when the customer isn't sure...
ii. In numerous segments, start treating your operators and maintainers as something other than interchangeable parts. Pay them as if they're professionals and give them a stake in the company. If someone has a financial interest in a company, they are more likely to seek operational and other efficiencies than someone who feels they could be kicked to the curb at any time.
iii. Invest in the education and development of operators and maintainers and develop a proportion of the company executives from within. A MBA, in and of itself, does not necessarily groom one to run a helicopter company (of whatever type).

For executives:
i. Take the long view. Develop corporate strategy that is less focused on quarterly earnings. Invest in R&D and education and envision the company's future after you're dead.
ii. Develop internships in cooperation with other segments of industry for promising employees. An operator employee who's experienced life at a manufacturer is more likely to make wise equipment decisions when in an executive position later.
iii. Broaden industrial diversity on boards of directors, collecting the best from other high-performing industries.

I think in the future we might see more powered lift fixed wings with extreme STOL.
A mix of helicopter and airplane design but much different and simpler than the tilt-wing.

Perhaps a quick review of what is "wrong" with Bell products as a way to focus old dog's attention for new tricks.

Wheels vice skids.

Tail Rotors that work (put an end to LTE).

Pilot seats....Pilot seats....Pilot seats...Pilot seats.

Instrument displays in front of the pilot....not off set.

Articulated or at least all in one plane rotor heads.

Fly through autopilots....make the "on" mode the default mode.

"Hold Open" door latches for crew doors.

Auto-start engines.

Air Con that works.

Windshield De-fog/de-ice that works.

Night Flight gear...landing lights, simple FLIR viewers, steerable landing lights, flood lights for aircraft surrounds,

Nick:
What a neat way to get new ideas for your new job! I fully support this way to poll the industry. Now for my 25¢ worth (for now).
1) Low airspeed sensing systems - we can get a lot more performance out of our machines, particularly Category A, if we had better airspeed information.
2) Dual channel FADEC on all engines
3) tail rotor cameras
4) type ratings for US helicopters - piston, turbine, multi-engine.

Keep up the above average work!

1.) Affordable system for flight into known icing.

2.) Make light/medium twins more cost effective to operate

My two topics seem to contradict themselves, but it is almost impossible to operate a medium twin for charter in the North East profitable, if you only have 8-9 month to do it!?
With profitable I mean, buy/lease and operate a helicopter without an owner who needs a tax write-off.

Btw: very good idea, this poll! :D

Another one for the above Bell points from SASless, GET RID OF THE C-BOX! A 412EP with a flat transmission and thus more available power, less chance of catostophic failure and a larger cabin (no transmission bulkhead) would be my choice for next gen EMS etc in front of the AW139 every time.

Great subject

This quote and Ned's story really reminds me of an oft heard bitch from many gingerbeers that I have worked with.

To quote; "why the f'n hell don't they just put a scaled down '47 head and blades on the damm thing."

Referring to R22's of course.

and

Not at all trying to be cute here. This request is for a warning device emanating from the differential of your low speed accurate ASI and the once a second update on your GPS.
Especially for those newbie drivers that we hear about that come straight off an R22 with a brand new commercial onto the left hand seat of a s61. The device is to kick is to warn when a dangerous VRS situation is approaching.

In the light gyrocopter realm, the craft serves the pilot. This is because the craft is being used for recreational purposes. A light STOL winged-craft can match and exceed all the performance attributes of a gyrocopter, but gyro pilots like the uniqueness and the skills that are involved.

Perhaps a similar analogy can be made between bicycles and unicycles.

___________________________________

Other VTOL craft are predominantly used for military and commercial purposes. This forum is predominantly pilot-oriented. However, Nick asked the question; " I solicit input from all quadrants of our field.", so from a cold and impersonal perspective, here is a, perhaps unattractive, response;

These craft do not serve the pilot. The pilot serves the craft. The craft serves the customer. Therefore, it is the desires of the customer that will predominantly determine what is required in the next generation.

IMHO, VTOL craft provide two basic functions, which are; in-flight activities and transportation. Also, the major factor limiting growth in this field is the low 'payload/cost ratio' of VTOL craft.

Assuming that the industry, which includes pilots and manufacturers, does truly want growth, it would appear that an improved 'payload/cost ratio' is by far the most important requirement.

The following may not win friends, but it does IMHO, representative the reality of next-generation VTOL. Bluntly put; the weight reduction resulting from the future use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles will significantly improve the cost/benefit ratio of VTOL craft doing in-flight activities; and eventually those doing transportation activities.


Mud
[probably my new name] :uhoh:

I've always thought some kind of feel system, maybe a buzzer, through the collective when we approach power limits might be useful.

I did like the blow away logic on the 76C++, i must thank you for that one. Very pilot friendly, although seeing red lights come on out of the corner of your eye took a little getting used to. The training switch is a good thing also

I'm all for simplification, we only do recurrent training once a year and really the easier you can make things the better. Quite frankly avaiation is full of complicated systems and abbreviations and i think it's all BS...

Then who do you blame if something goes wrong.

Way back on my first RAF squadron in 1962 I was informed by some some technocrat that pilots would be out of a job within ten years. They're still saying it. Unmanned trains and other surface vehicles have the advantage in that if something goes wrong you can stop them. You can't do that in the air. Unmanned ariel vehicles at present are considered sacrificial if necessary.
It is going to take a long time, decades, before a system is built that somebody has the confidence to sign off as perfect, because perfection is what you will need.
For most, if not all of us, it will never happen so at least we can continue to put foward ideas.

Nick, I'll give you two lists. One is a fantasy list that is all about the direction of the future but is not likely to be feasible in the short term. The second is the practical list that won't drive product prices too high.

Fantasy List:

1. Advanced Flight & Engine Control System. Don't break them up into two clever devices that don't talk to each other. This is what stands between the pilot and the machine. The pilot should tell the control system what the pilot wants it to do, the control system should do what it is told without breaking the machine. The pilot even has some ability to override the protection.

2. Comfortable & functional cockpit. Helicopter pilots need to look outside and be comfortable. Lots of windows. The rest of the cockpit doesn't need to be cluttered with multiple displays, gauges, etc. Enough glass displays that everything you may need can be shown, but only when you need it. Numbers of mechanical switches and circuit breakers should be minimized. Interface with the aircraft through a computer, except for the essential bits (flight&engine control on/off, radio on/off).

3. Information. The pilot needs all the information available, and needs it filtered to the point that it isn't overwhelming. Satellite data link for weather reports, nearby traffic, etc. Sensors to detect other aircraft, terrain, wires, icing conditions. Performance monitoring of the helicopter, comparison to predicted performance, extrapolation to actual current capability (ie hover ceiling, fuel range, etc.) Databases with terrain elevation, imagery, airport services, good hamburger joints, etc. all updated regularly.


Practical List:

1. Reliable and timely delivery of parts.

2. Functional storage in the cockpit. My 2001 minivan has 27 storage compartments, 9 of them accessible by the driver, compared to 1 compartment in the helicopter (1 accessible by driver). I use one map about 10% of the time in the minivan compared to the checklist, maps, charts, plates, water bottles, etc. used 100% of the time in the cockpit.

3. Performance. Faster, heavier, economical, environmental, fail-safe, etc. Small steps here are better than no steps.

Fareastdriver,

Your remarks are valid.

I took Nick literally when he asked A Boeing Vice-president commented in a speech a few years ago that helicopters had not progressed beyond their first generation. That aside, the time between the initial concept of a 'new generation' rotorcraft and that of its large scale usage may be measured in decades, as you say.

Mud; (alias Dave)

I think you need to decide wether to keep the pilot or not; if the answer is no then focus the whole effort on maximising reliability, payload and performance.

If the pilot is to stay (IMHO he will) then the reliability payload and performance has to be added to what serves the pilot best.

A pilot needs:

A comfortable environment in terms of seating and temperature.

A system of controls which is easy to fly, I believe that the only way that is achievable is FBW, a pilot shouldn't have to make multiple control trim adjustments with change in velocity, if the helicopter is in a hover at 3' and heading 313 degrees Mag, then that's where it should stay. Build protections into the system so the pilot is always aware of how close he is to the edge of his envelope. Make the controls intuitive, forward cyclic means forward movement.

Keep the Bell 214 style collective, in my opinion possibly the most creative thing to come out of a Bell plant. Very intuitive.

Allow the pilot to know what the helicopter is doing now and where it will be in a few seconds/minutes (depending how close the outside hard bits are). Make the displays simple, don't reproduce round dials onto CRT screens - what a waste. The pilot should have the minor ability of being able to see out of the window properly, not kinda/sort of if you kick off 13 degrees of drift and slide it sideways onto the helideck narrowly missing the loose seagull and crane jib and I should mention, without having to slide the window open and land while the rain pours through the orifice.

Only provide required information, a CBOX T/P is utterly inconsequential if it is fine and stable.

Have a Health Monitoring System which works - i.e. it will reliably warn the pilot and maintainance guys that there is an incipient problem with critical components.

The fixed wing designers are way ahead at the moment, but they are not totally there yet. Helicopters have a chance not only to catch up but perhaps leapfrog the Boeings and Airbus of this world - if they would only admit that what they are doing now is not right and be brave enough to solicit opinion - as you are.

Regards

TOD

KISS (Keep it simple Stupid)
 

Nick,

In the meantime while you are evaluating the many excellent future developments suggested above, I have very simple requests from Bell!

• Build helicopters that keep rain on the outside!
• Fit wipers that work for more than a few seconds
• Have baggage compartments that accept more than hand luggage
• Don't put baggage bay doors in the middle of the bay restricting the length of items that may be carried to less than two thirds of the total length available
• Fit windows that don't look as if they were designed by the Wright brothers and break on a reglar basis because the doors slam due to lack of restraint in the open position
• Stop trying to improve the UH1 - start again!
• Don't consider liferafts and floats an afterthought (Look at Sikorsky and Eurocopter fits)
• Fit 3 point harnesses/seatbelts that don't strangle passengers
• Go back to the subcontractor who built the 212 Pilot harness and dump the one that makes the similar but cheaper 412 version (with the crazy twist feature)
• Publish RFM's with graphs that recognise that life exists outside the FAA.
• Employ someone who understands "streamlining" and drag

On a more positive and slightly contradictory note, don't stop building "Toyota Trucks" - don't fall into the Sikorsky/Eurocopter trap of building "sports cars" - we need trucks in many parts of the Globe. For all its' faults, the 412EP is still a Beast for relatively short range offshore work.

To re-iterate Sasless, find out who designed the 412 head and don't have him anywhere near your future team.

Trog

I can't see any point in a huge redesign of the whole aircraft configuration to have an IAS of greater than 250 kts because that's the maximum allowed outside controlled airspace. I think you know what I'm saying, Nick.

I want a lot of power but going through a gearbox that can't be overstressed by the power available, either total or OEI. In other words, I want to be able to pull collective and not worry about limits. Give me an audio warner of Nr droop and a decent (round) Nr gauge placed right where I can see it, not hidden amongst four or five other similar looking strip gauges - after all, it is the most important gauge in the aircraft! Now we've got noise cancelling headsets the natural rotor noise is masked to some extent. I want some sort of feel on the collective - a feel spring at the limit, like the Gazelle had would be ideal. Surely it must be possible for a monitoring computer to give a "kick" or vibration to the collective as a limit is neared. I can then keep my eyes outside at the most crtical times, not looking in at the gauges to see which limit I'm likely to bust first.

These days many of us are required to fly single pilot IFR onshore in Class G airspace, often going under and around increasingly more controlled airspace. So we need an excellent moving map system to ensure we retain sufficient spatial awareness. The charts ideally need to show terrain (GPWS).TCAS overlay is a must (roll on mandatory transponders for all :E).

An icing clearance is becoming a priority, please. A 4 axis autopilot is also a must.

I can't agree with the comment about not reproducing round gauges on the flat screens (surely we don't want 'CRT's though - they're old hat and heavy). Round gauges give 'pie chart' trend info as well as a total. I think that's why Sikorsky went back to them on the S-92, after those awful 'trend bars' on the C+.

Sometimes I think helicopters are 30 years behind cars, long lead times being the problem. I have to say that Agusta have dragged medium helicopters into the end of the last century with the 109 / 139 series; they now certainly set the standard in many areas. They need to improve the autopilot response on the 109; it presently doesn't match the ability of that of the last generation of Sikorskys.

Sikorsky have got left behind for the time being. I think they over-concentrated on the Commanche to the detriment of their corporate line of aircraft. Its cancellation was surely a huge blow and wake up call for them, hence the delay in getting a D model. We are now on the D- :E

relibility
 

Perhaps if the manufacturers concentrated on reliability of existing technology, rather than new gismos :( we would be more relaxed about new innovations.
As for glass panels, until the replacement cost comes down to Hundreds rather than Thousands leave the round dial alone, at least if one goes out hopefully you still have all\most of the others still working.
Reliability and spares availability are the things that impinge on the bottom line of any commercial user.

To back up Shy Torques point about collectives that kick back, I think that is an excellent idea that we can learn from fixed wing.

In the Boeing 777 if you try to over-bank, you get a kick from the controls to tell you that this is not a good idea. You still can, if you need to avoid a mountain, but you will be resisted.

I fly a European helicopter that has the possibility of overtorque at high weights and more than moderate pedal requirements. The system is so sophisticated that it will tell me that I have broken the machine when I interrogate the computer on shutdown. That is too late. I want it to tell me with tactile interference that I am over cooking it at the time.

To have the same from the collective should not be difficult. After all, I can get tactile feedback on my computer games which cost virtually nothing.

And thank you for asking the coal face. Few designers do.

To tie in with Matthew's wishlist, I would like to see synthetic vision systems integrated into the aircraft to the point where there will be virtually no instrument panel, perhaps one screen mounted between the seats for control purposes and the rest of the information either being projected onto the actual windscreen or into a large HUD. This would keep pilots eyes outside the cockpit where they should be, would eliminate the need for instrument scanning and visibility requirements would be obsolete. With a combination of FLIR, terrain and mapping data, low light systems and wire avoidance radar, all relevant information could be presented to the pilot on the HUD. Taking the instrument panel away from the traditional position would also improve visibility immensely in VFR conditions. If the mapping software is accurate and updated, the wire avoidance radar would also be obsolete since the navigation system would already be aware of where the wires are and show them on the HUD.

Touch screen technology, coupled navigation systems and autopilot would enable the pilot to touch the relevant waypoints he wants to use on the screen to make the man/machine interface more efficient. A cursor, controlled with a mouse or joystick mounted on the controls, could serve the same purpose and could also be used on the HUD to mark a waypoint or LZ. Using the coupled autopilot, the pilot could mark the LZ visually using the cursor in the HUD, decide what approach angle would be safest and the autopilot could do the flying to the hover at a specific height, leaving the pilot to look around and ensure the area is clear, safe and big enough without having to concentrate on the flying too. The map database would show known wires or obstructions to assist in planning the approach. The SAR boys already use something similar in concept.

All of the above technology exists and is getting smaller and lighter all the time. If integrated, many of the current instruments would be replaced, saving weight from the instruments themselves as well as the required wiring. The F22 Raptor does not even have radios, they are integrated into the computers computers and similar technology could be used to replace many of the traditional instruments. A VSI using GPS / laser gyro inputs instead of atmospheric changes would be accurate, same could be done with the altimeter and ASI.

The Super Puma variant I flew had an elastic stop on the collective, surely this could be made into a variable elastic stop based on ambient conditions being received into the ADC or from the FLI, as used on some of the Eurocopter series. Would keep eyes outside and provide another warning of approaching limits besides the current visual/audio cues used.

Great idea Nick, I hope I am around long enough to use some of the stuff being built now, exciting times.

collectives that shake and kick???
 

I think what people are really asking for when they suggest vibrating controls is feedback to the pilot that he is about to approach a limit. I'd humbly suggest that vibrating controls are a step backwards and really don't help when you need it. Sure you know you are approaching a limit, but it is very challenging to actually milk the aircraft for all its worth when the controls are moving in your hands. There are systems in development for FBW aircraft that can modfiy the forces fedback to the pilot to let him know he is approaching a limit in a much less intrusive manner. IMHO that is what we need, computer controlled force/displacement cues to protect the aircraft yet let us pull for all its worth when we absolutely need it. We need carefree handling throughout the envelope, both from the powertrain and the flight controls. Ever heard an F-16 pilot being lectured by an experienced pilot on the need to be gentle with the aircraft? Now substitute helicopter pilot for F-16 and answer that question. Carefree handling and envelope protection please! Pilots shouldn't have to "milk" the aircraft it should willingly and safely give you all it's worth, and then more in an emergency.
Other than that wish, I second SASless and Troglodita comments to help get Bell out of the 70's...

From personal past experience, a vibrating collective is a strong and unmistakeable cue to advise a pilot that he needs to back off a little.

If the collective can be given more resistance as limits are reached (like I said, as on the Gazelle) that also would be fine in my book.

What I don't personally like is a plethora of audio cues (bings and bongs etc) which can be mis-identified in a stressful situation, especially for pilots current on more than one type. Even worse are the ones that only indicate that you have just bust a limit, rather than approached it.

Ivor the driver:
Not as complex as the CAA with a type rating for every helicopter. Just three type ratings as stated. The reason is to make the technical level of understanding better in the US. If you didn't know, there are no type ratings here for helicopters <12,500 lbs.

For utility helicopters:

• Keep the Bell ruggedness and reliability - it exceeds Eurocopter IMHO
• Easily read limit guages. Eurocopter's FLI is satisfactory but expensive.
• First limit warning system with graduated audio or physical cues.
• Twin FADEC
• Transmissions that can absorb all the power available and paid for.
• Some form of tail rotor protection.
• Capacious baggage and cabin compartments with flat floor and good access.
• Pilot seat near the door sill.
• Onboard weighing system capable of recording exceedences.
• Tamper proof flight time recording.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment Mr Lappos.