sharkbait Posted February 19, 2011 Report Posted February 19, 2011 Any one got any stats on twins having an engine failure and flying away to a no damage landing vs singles having an engine fail and outo rotating to a landing with no damage? Since in both cases no damage was done what is the reporting criteria? Quote
Phil Croucher Posted February 19, 2011 Report Posted February 19, 2011 Interesting one that, since the definition of an accident includes "serious damage" - no damage = no accident! Unless you count something being sucked into the engine. phil Quote
Jet B Posted February 19, 2011 Report Posted February 19, 2011 Once again, the stats are not mine, but belong to NASA and Bell. If you base your safety only on an engine failure, you are missing the other 85% of the equation. Safety decisions on any one aspect of helicopters should not be made without considering all the other safety aspects, as well as the human causes. Fly safe in your "clapped out old twin". Wayne I really agree with this. I guess I have always felt safer longlining because I'm better able to control that 85% of the equation. This could be true for anyone doing whatever work they are most experienced or comfortable with. A twin would be great if it didn't add all the other factors of complexity and if it was actually able to maintain the load with only one engine. But that doesn't seem to be cost effective or common to see out there. I also agree with Skullcaps comment that if the clients are really concerned with safety, dropping the max loads to 75% of capacity would have a much higher effect on safety than anything else. 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.