Phil Croucher Posted February 8, 2011 Report Posted February 8, 2011 "As part of my training background, we often entered autorotation to touchdowns inside the edge of that chart. Additionally, every "normal" approach you complete (aka the standard site picture and walking pace) goes right through the middle of that chart." The H/V chart is not valid(ated) for approaches. Above the knee it covers the cruise, below that the climb out. Phil Quote
helicopterjim Posted February 9, 2011 Report Posted February 9, 2011 The Bell 205 A1 for instance has an HV diagram in the limitations section Are you saying that longlining with a 205 is exceeding a limitation? Quote
Winnie Posted February 9, 2011 Report Posted February 9, 2011 I think it was mentioned before that there is a manual supplement for the 205 that allows for the operation of sling/long-line that no longer limits the flight through the HV Curve. Cheers H. Quote
RupertPupkin Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Come on Dashy no need for name calling. I wasn't saying that you agree with the quote. I'm not even saying that twins are any safer than singles, however in the event that I was to have an engine failure I would rather have another good engine running next to it. Quote
jullian Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 Finnair, In your statistics were you taking into account for the number of single engine helicopters working as opposed to twin engine helicopters working in the H\v chart ? Quote
Guest jacdor Posted February 10, 2011 Report Posted February 10, 2011 I think it was mentioned before that there is a manual supplement for the 205 that allows for the operation of sling/long-line that no longer limits the flight through the HV Curve. Cheers H. FAAAPPROVED 205A-1 FLIGHT MANUAL Sections 2 & 3 SUPPLEMENT BHT-205A1-FMS-2 HEIGHT-VELOCITY DIAGRAM. The Height-Velocity Diagram is not a limitation for external cargo operations under an appropriate operating certificate. JD Quote
Finnair Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Jullian Good question.... The stats provided were not mine, but belong to a US organization called NASA. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) performed a study of US Civil Rotorcraft Accidents over a 34 year period. http://www3.verticalgateway.com/portals/54/industry_reports/NASA%20TP%20209597.pdf The link above will provide you with the entire 300+ page report. The previous post was to show that twin turbine helicopters may reduce the frequency of engine failures, but the increase in airframe/component failures offset any advantage to twin turbine. Single turbine helicopters are the backbone of this great industry, so I would expect that they may be involved in more long line operations than twin engine helicopters. I do not have any data to confirm this though. Helicopter accidents for 2010 were 1.64 accidents per 100,000 flight hours and 1.44 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. These numbers hardly represent a significant safety advantage of twin over single or visa versa. If you want to know which numbers belong to which class of helicopter, you can buy the copyrighted report, as I did, from Robert E Breiling Associates. From a legal standpoint mentioned in the original post, you may want to do a Google search for “helicopter burn victim lawyers” I think they may have a much more persuasive argument to a jury rather than trying to prove negligence by operations in the H/V curve, which is not a limitation on most helicopters. Wayne Quote
CSX4840 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 That may be the most ridiculous thing I've read. Next thing we know we'll be be flying 1 pax in a 212 to do water sampling. Oh, wait a minute....we're already doing that. FreeFall is right. Can't argue with the safety stats of the old 206. Quote
old dog Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 For your consideration; Loss of engine power accounted for 31% of the single turbine first event category accidents. Loss of engine power accounted for 13% of the twin turbine first event category accidents. Airframe/component failure accounted for 30% of the twin turbine first event category accidents. Airframe/component failure accounted for 12% of the single turbine first event category accidents. First event is the physical event that adversly affected the rotorcraft or unusual occurance that the aircrew became aware of. We train for engine failures throughout our careers. Some airframe component failures can be very difficult or impossible to train for. Taken from NASA US Rotorcraft Accident Study. Wayne Wayne, To quote Disraeli: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." As you well know, they can be used to prove anything you want. Jerry Quote
Finnair Posted February 11, 2011 Report Posted February 11, 2011 Hey Jerry Hope you are doing well in retirement. I don't regularly read Disraeli, but if you can provide some facts, and some links to such, I'm all ears. Wayne Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.