R44 banned from flying under EASA rules ?

[arrrj]

Gents (experts...CY Heli, R Nest etc),

Can someone (or more than one expert) please comment on this statement taken from the "Rotortech 2014" programme.

"Can Robinson be successfully challenged in the light helicopter market ?". Over half of the Australian fleet are Robinsons. Product upgrades. Why R66 may be able to fly in some areas and the R44 is banned under pending CASA (EASA) rules ?

Arrrj



PS - the underlining is mine...not from the Rotortech mailout. (And, yes, I did post this under the performance Part 133/138 prior, but without comment - so try again !).

[CYHeli]

I preface this replay with the caveat that I am on holidays and not in front of detailed legislation.
I haven't spoken to Rob who put the flier together, so I don't know if he has seen something recently.
As far as I know -
No firm rules yet, just discussion.
Certainly not banned.
There are some issues if you are operating piston aircraft under 1000' agl over populous place.
There is also rumour that the front seat belts need to be four point harness for CHTR, any front seat lap sash will not be compliant.

Is that simple enough for now?

[KNOW NUFFEN]

[quote="arrrj"]Gents (experts...CY Heli, R Nest etc),

Can someone (or more than one expert) please comment on this statement taken from the "Rotortech 2014" programme.


Arrrj

As an armchair expert who knows nothing , Tell me the facts in helicopter crashes in Australia.
1/ How many crashes and greater injuries are due to one having a one point harness or 2 compared to a four point harness? Answer none ?.
2/ Is it safer to crash over a populous area from 1001 feet or 900 feet ? Answer it doesn't matter?

Just more public servants rewriting rules . KN

[SuperF]

KN

1. Have you got the detailed research from a significant number of crashes to prove what you just stated? I would love to see the details... I'll take the 4 point harness in the Bell over the car seat belt in a Robbie any day! If car seat belts are so safe, then why do race car drivers have a 4 or 5 point harness?

2. The difference between 900' and 1000' may not be huge, however the difference between 100, 500 and 1000 is huge! Now we have to have some rules about heights or else it will just be a free for all, and a lot of guys that are trying to prove how cool they are will start doing beat ups of their mates house in the middle of town.

Not too long after that innocent people will die sitting in their living room as an R22/44/b206/AS350/EC120 crashes into the house....

Then we will all be banned from flying within 1000' of a house, or person or structure anywhere. The politicians love a media beat up, and love nothing better than slapping more rules on the Rich Yuppie Cowboys raining death from the sky!

[CYHeli]

From what I have previously read of the DRAFT/PROPOSED rules, I will provide two examples of what currently happens in an attempt to make it clearer;

1 The R44 used in most capital cities for traffic reporting.
Almost No change. They currently operate above 1000' above the cities, so nothing changes there during the day.
BUT, the proposed changes to night flying mean that they will be required to comply with IF rules. You can get IF rated Robbie's, but two pilot ops for after dark.

2. I have seen an R44 used in Queensland for power line patrols.
Gone. Under new (proposed) rules, must be turbine with engine monitoring, etc (devil in detail) to conduct AWK below CAR 157 heights.

I'll catch up with Rob and find out more of what he was alluding to.

[arrrj]

CY (and others),

Thanks for the replies.

CY, I think your answer in part 2 (above) is the key. Turbines WITH new engine monitoring is what is proposed, no more 44s in the cities.

KN (and no doubt many others) makes the very good point that there are no stats to say that a 206, 66 or 44 (for example) are any better or worse than each other when it comes to engines failing, this push is simply to grab hold of the EASA rules, and in that way CASA believes that they can cover themselves in case of a drama. The decisions are not based on fact and will have no benefit to safety (apart from greatly reducing the number of aircraft flying...think about that !).

It is simply NOT right and in NZ the heli industry there successfully challenged similar legislation in court, which I suspect is something that we may have to do here. Of course, one does hope for sanity to prevail...but I am not holding my breath.

As one of the many who have been discussing this issue publicly and privately since it was first proposed, and been involved in a number of submissions to CASA, I believe it is a very serious potential problem for the industry, and I also believe that many industry players have not paid enough attention to what has been proposed.

It's all very well to say "all will be OK", however I don't think it will be.

How, for example, can the Ch 9 Squirrel operate out of Willoughby within the new rules. Answer - I don't think it can. (Yes, I know Ch 9 are moving anyway, but this is an example). If we need a safe landing site (check the details, that's not a road etc) before we get to 500 feet when taking off in a built up area, what is the solution ? A fully vertical take off, using the pad as our safe bail out ? I do not think that is so safe...i.e. it is more dangerous for all.

Sure, if you are based at BK or another airport, no worries, but many of us (me included) are NOT.

An industry veteran told me that he reckons that if these rules come in as proposed (and there is no indication that they won't be) then the only machines flying will be twins, and the whole private sector will collapse, leaving only government, big operators and the very rich flying...in his opinion "just what CASA wants".

Something to think about.

Arrrj

[rotors99]

burn them....there a Witch

burn them all

[arrrj]

VF (rotors99),

Yes, we are all aware of your dislike of Robinson helicopters.

If you took the time to look at the facts, this discussion surrounds new legislation that may prevent ALL single engine helicopters flying over the major cities in Australia, your old country.

I, and many others, believe that this is a major problem for the industry in Australia, one that has been fought (and won) in NZ and fought (and lost) in Europe (for example the A119 Koala was a failure, commercially, as a result).

Thanks for your photos and cracker stories on Tibet (on Prune), but this is a serious problem for the Australian helicopter industry.

Arrrj

[SuperF]

arrrj,

While a single in NZ can fly over populous areas at 1000' above the surrounding area, we now have to have a clear "crash path" (my words) in order to be able to takeoff and land.
That has virtually eliminated singles operating below 1000' in populous areas. most of us tried to have a clear crash path in the past, but are even more cautious about what is below us now.

We also have no definition of a populous area..... so we make that up as we go.... which means that we can use roads, sports fields etc as our crash path.

a vertical climb out to 500' or 1000' before moving forward, while being more dangerous, may be legal, as i don't think that they are too concerned about what happens to the pilots. i doubt that you could use it for charter ops.

CYheli

in example 2, are you talking about powerline surveys in town or out in the countryside. and what type of powerline surveys? low level visual flights, or 500-1000' with stabilised gymbal, etc.

out in the countryside, im happy to be within a few feet of the powerline for visual surveys, but in town its very different in a single.

[arrrj]

SuperF,

Thanks mate, I completely understand your situation regarding flying over towns.

My personal one in Sydney is similar. I operate (exclusively) out of a fully approved helipad located in "the built up suburbs". I can get to "the crash area" in about 30 seconds flying, and from there I reckon I am compliant with the rules. My problem is that how do I negotiate that 1/2 kilometre ? I stress that it doesn't matter (from my understanding) whether I am in a 44, 66, 206 or 350, all are singles (noting the CASA desire for turbines).

Of course, everyone else operating over "the built up area" (landing / take off) has exactly the same problem, and that is why I am hosting the debate. Not everyone is operating in / out of an airport within cities in Australia.

The difference between Aus and NZ as I read it is that we can't nominate a road or any area where the public may be as our crash site...of course, that includes sporting grounds and golf course (if occupied). And there's your problem ! (PS...I am heading for the road or whatever is clear IF I have a failure).

We (as an industry) need to voice our combined opinion, or most of the industry will be flipping hamburgers at McDonalds, or fighting to fly the last few helis (twins) in Aus.

Arrrj

PS _ I have flown in NZ a fair bit, and it is a great place fly...amazing scenery !

[rotors99]

Hey Arrj

Mate jest throwin in some humor ole Mate. & seriously I DO dislike Crapinson Flimsicopters

Yes barring singles from cities is just plain stupid, as they say; 'stupid is, what stupid does'

Thanks for the thread compliments, it's in Nepal - the 'Top of the World'

Can Oz be saved from it's own do gooder minority, knee jerk bureaucratic incompitant bungling? Let's pray it can...................but, not looking good so far

Happy Landings

[arrrj]

Rotors99,

No worries mate. Enjoying flying in a part of the world that still allows singles to get in the air ! (Although I understand India, close to you, is twins only).

Arrrj

[rotors99]

Hey Arrj

Flying in Nepal, in this weather, DA & altitude is challenging to say the least but also super awesome. Hmmmmm I flew in India for a few years, there was no twin requirement then, but they always did prefer Politicians & VVIP's to fly in twins wherever possible & always 2 Pilot's twin or single.

Let's hope our full of Bollsheeteaucrats don't F the Oz system up entirely

Happy Landings Brother

Rotors99 (VF)

[mickjoiebill]

[
Arrrj

As an armchair expert who knows nothing , Tell me the facts in helicopter crashes in Australia.
1/ How many crashes and greater injuries are due to one having a one point harness or 2 compared to a four point harness? Answer none ?.
2/ Is it safer to crash over a populous area from 1001 feet or 900 feet ? Answer it doesn't matter?

Just more public servants rewriting rules . KN

In answer to
1/ Based on my examination of aerial filming accidents, there is no standardised hard data on mechanisms of injury of the majority of accidents.
2/ Even wearing helmets and strapped into the latest Eurocopter seats fatal injuries are sustained from a crash (no fire) spin from 300ft. However if the pilot has some control clearly the higher the better as there is more time to steer the craft away from the public.

Getting back to 1/ in my opinion, a four point harness and a helmet and a neck brace/HANs device would have enabled some occupants to self extract before fire.

Whilst it is a niche market, a reminder that no member of the ground dwelling public has been seriously inured (if any at all) in an aerial filming accident anywhere in the world from 2000 to 2013 and most aerial filming is conducted with singles also no cameraman has been killed or seriously injured in an R44 news.


Having spent many hours filming above London in twins I can see the political sense in using twins as low as 750ft over such a congested area. Without being forced to use twins, would a sensible pilot hover in a single at 750ft over a congested area?

I'd like to see rules tailored on historical data…



Mickjoebill

[Skeeter]

Without being forced to use twins, would a sensible pilot hover in a single at 750ft over a congested area?

The news, Youtube etc show us and the regulator on a nearly weekly basis how many not-sensible pilots are out there.