So another sham improvement from Shell Aircraft?

I think I've made the postion clear.

It is regrettable that certain major improvements are being held up by amoral lobby by opeartors (you know who you are) and weak willed ignorant regulators (you probably don't know what safety is).

Still, the Netherlands is leading the way!

SM,

Do you really think those operators lobbying against PC2e are amoral? Do you totally discount the possibility that they sincerely believe PC2e might result in an overall reduction in safety due to the reasons stated earlier in this thread? If so, I suggest that you should be lobbying not for PC2e, but for PC1. PC1 requires the use of Category A Certified procedures, procedures that are substantiated by flight test rather than computer modeling.

HT

There was a consultation on the NPA. The operators accepted it then. Now they want to bring out various sprious arguments. If not amoral - what? Incompetance? Lazyness?

The lack of response confirms what I contended about the lazy response last year.

The lack of an answer just confirms the lack of proactive culture.

Incompetence? Laziness?.......WOW! I note that more than 10% of the words in the above quote are misspelled!

Sorry for the cheap shot, but I just couldn’t resist.

Category PC2 with exposure
 

Hi guys,
Am tracking down information on Category PC2 with exposure. In particular, which helicopter models are capable/certified? If that is the right term.

It appears as though it will become a requirement in Australia within the next 2 to 5 years, and I understand EASA has been using it for some time. I guess JimL will be all over it!

I think, B412, BK117, EC135, EC145, EC155, AW139, Bell 429, S76C+, EC225, ...generally all twins in last 20 years can operate PC2...(I m not sure for Bell 427:{)

Also, some of them operate PC1.

Onshore maybe. The question relates to their operation from elevated offshore helidecks. This is a special case due to deck impacts and lack of safe rejection area.

Hmmm, OK.

btw. I forgot to mention, AW109E

Here's my personal precis:

Eurocopter decided they couldn't compete commercially with the requirements associated with PC2e.
They lobbied the N Sea operators.
The N Sea operators danced to their tune and seem to have collectively killed off the requirement.

So it looks like we're heading down a route called PC2d - defined exposure. So no safety improvement, just a defined period where the crew will not know what to do (do we ditch or do we fly away?) and lives could be lost.

Good precis! Maybe someone should tell Michael O'Leary about the concept - imagine all those small regional airports he could use with a few seconds of exposure before and after V1!!

Variable Load, thanks for the update.

Does anyone know if EASA is in the process of removing the PC2e language from the regulation and replacing it with new PC2d language, and if so, what the interim operating rules are.

HT

The words are exactly the same - they always were objective and, therefore, flexible.

Jim

VL, that is a valid point only if your world of possible dangerous outcomes is blinkered to the case of an engine failure during the few seconds of takeoff or landing when safe OEI flight is not assured - and even with PC2E there is no engine failure accountability except possibly for an idealised perfect offshore installation which unfortunately doesn't exist.

In the real world there are many more dangerous outcomes as demonstrated by the fact that engine failure during exposure time has never happened in the entire history of the N Sea, whilst we have found plenty of other ways to crash. If you take a look at overall safety, operating with low fuel states to achieve PC2e mass could result in an overall reduction in safety and that is why the UK operators (not EC) preferred not to implement PC2E. However PC 2DLE is a reasonable compromise that raises crew awareness of exposure and ensures that the aircraft are not operated with an unduly long exposure time.