EC135 ditching

What have you heard?
User avatar
Yakking
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 476
Joined: Oct 2007

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Yakking » Tue May 15 2018, 10:57

flyhuey wrote:.


[b]Now then
, among all the PDF References (listed below) that I could immediately find, via Google, as far as I can discern, the EC135, operating without an Autopilot (Digital Automatic Flight Control System) is not even a Limitation is not an Emergency Procedure Memory Item AND, I did not see in the Normal Procedures expanded checklist. It was not mentioned in the Type Certificate Data Sheet. Why is that? Would the EC-135 become unairworthy without the Digital Automatic Flight Control System, except for the pilot's inability to fly without a bit of help. You are suggesting this helicopter was designed ONLY to be flown with the Autopilot On! The Flight Manual does not even give a hint of that.

IF the Digital Automatic Flight Control System is not Optional Equipment and must be always ON, then show me where it is written among these references:
http://www.helicopterindia.com/yahoo_si ... 193407.pdf
http://airbushelicoptersinc.com/images/ ... a_2009.pdf
http://www.hdf.fr/public/PDF/EC_135_PDF.pdf
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 102011.pdf (Type Certificate Data Sheet does not include Autopilot or Digital Automatic Flight Control System) <b>THUS, not required.</b>


I think you'll find the prelim report it poorly written. They are referring to the Upper modes of the autopilot, aka "uncoupling". They allude to it as such a few paragraphs further down.

You can fly the 135 with the Autopilot off, but I wouldn't want to try and land it or be close to anything. Think of it as the equivalent as Hydraulics off in many other aircraft.
I wish I had a catchy saying like everyone else...
flyhuey
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 81
Joined: Mar 2014

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby flyhuey » Tue May 15 2018, 12:54

Truly, Knockers, I could give a rat's arse if you respect me or not. I definitely do not seek it or even need it. You've got Forum Trolls on BS, who are not even pilots handing out advice to pilots AS IF. You've got guys on here the biggest and most complex helicopter they have flown is an R44, yet hand out advice AS IF they did three tours in Nam flying gunships. YET, none of you kunts and knockers afflicted with Tall Poppy Syndrome EVER STATE, "I am giving all of you this sound advice based on 10,000 hours Night Inverted IFR, in Formation" -or, what ever. You loathe anyone who has done more, in their career. That is your problem. I have known guys who have flown A380 as a Captain or Senior Check and Training Captain. . . Think I am jealous of them? Think I go around gossiping like a bunch of fairy bitches behind their backs? Think I would stab 'em in the back, because I want their job? That is the kind of work you lot do. You have never met me, never flown with me, never seen my credentials, or logbooks, but you have a mouthful to say or gossip about. Speaks volumes about you.

0ldrotorhead, I QUOTE YOU, Mate:
And finally, learn something about the EC135 please. This aircraft has the AP on before the aircraft is even lifted into a hover and is not flown without it being ON.

I provided whatever information in various EC135 Manuals in PDF format, for your edification, particularly.

I do not mind being told I am full of sh!t, just prove it. Show me where it is written. You made the statement. Back it up. If you cannot back it up, just admit you are just one more of these know-nothing know-it-alls. Talk a lot of sh!t, passing it off as expert advice, but cannot provide counter-evidence. You just thought you would take a cheap shot like these other wanksticks, BUT CANNOT BACK IT UP. At least I can provide black and white information that you do not know what you are taking about.

I have known guys like you, during my career, who would swear up and down something was "procedure", or in the S.O.P. or in the Aircraft Manual, but when I asked them to show me, they could not and it was merely their technique. I have flown about 130 different aircraft. I have owned an aircraft as part of my business . . . Let's just say I have studied a lot of aircraft, And, I have studied aircraft I never flew, purely out of curiosity. If and when I get around to contributing something on BS, it is based on personal experience, based on the Regulations, based on an aircraft operator's manual, based on a Flight Crew Training Manual, or some specific reference . . . I just do not throw out unsubstantiated bullsh!t for public consumption and make like it is "Expert Advice".

I will say it for the last time, IF THE AUTOPILOT WAS MEANT TO BE ON PRIOR TO LIFTING OFF INTO A HOVER IT WOULD BE IN: #1 Type Certificate Data Sheet, but it is not; #2 the aircraft Limitation Section of the of the EC135 P2+ Flight Manual, but it is not; #3 the Emergency Procedures, but it is not; #4 the Normal Procedures expanded checklist, but it is not.

I might be a dick, in your small minds, but at least when I write something, I can back it up with evidence and not merely bullsh!t and smartass comments. You lot throw a whole lot of bullsh!t around on this forum and make others believe you are the experts. There are probably low hour pilots reading this forum and hanging every word you write. But, it is mostly bullsh!t, and hardly expert advice.
Last edited by flyhuey on Tue May 15 2018, 13:44, edited 1 time in total.
Balibelly
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 29
Joined: Apr 2016

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Balibelly » Tue May 15 2018, 13:34

Being an extremely green pilot and never flown a Heli with an autopilot.

Do you mean the AP is SAS and possibly ATT mode?

And upper modes would be things such as HDG, NAV or FD?

Obviously then the AP(SAS) would have to be on all the time like most SAS equipped Helicopters?
oldrotorhead
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 64
Joined: Jan 2008

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby oldrotorhead » Tue May 15 2018, 23:46

[highlight=]I do not mind being told I am full of sh!t, just prove it. Show me where it is written. You made the statement. Back it up. If you cannot back it up, just admit you are just one more of these know-nothing know-it-alls. Talk a lot of sh!t, passing it off as expert advice, but cannot provide counter-evidence. You just thought you would take a cheap shot like these other wanksticks, BUT CANNOT BACK IT UP. At least I can provide black and white information that you do not know what you are taking about.
[/highlight]
OK Huey boy - you win. I can't be bothered with you any more. I gave you the best advice I could which you clearly don't want to do and my last post was clear enough. FFS, ring somebody who does know like Airbus or one of the other suggestions I made. ORH
User avatar
bangequalsbad
1st Dan
1st Dan
Posts: 265
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby bangequalsbad » Wed May 16 2018, 03:05

pop;
Having been labeled a “hater” and “troll” long before the internet was invented, I find your attempt at an insult offensive, so bravo.

Maybe the MEL for the said aircraft would be the appropriate place to find out if the AP is a requirement for flight?

Can you google that one Huey?

I know you have used computer labs for your solid rocket motors and to send emails before email was invented and to calculate great-circle paths before GPS (all quoteable statements) so maybe call on some of your experience (before becoming unemployable officially in 2014) and check that out.

:wink:
Banger
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1615
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby hand in pants » Wed May 16 2018, 22:23

flewhuey is having two weeks off.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Yakking
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 476
Joined: Oct 2007

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Yakking » Thu May 17 2018, 11:57

hand in pants wrote:flewhuey is having two weeks off.

Where’s the “like” button?
I wish I had a catchy saying like everyone else...
User avatar
Yankee
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 344
Joined: Aug 2008

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Yankee » Sat May 19 2018, 11:15

Ugh.
Why all this yawner about the autopilot. They were on approach.
Upper modes automatically decouple somewhere below 50 kts, which is most likely the conditions of that helicopter when stuff went sideways.


RIP fellow aviator
Don't think of yourself as and ugly person. Think of yourself as a beautiful monkey.
kiwiflyer
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 199
Joined: Jun 2008

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby kiwiflyer » Sat May 19 2018, 19:07

Ugh no they don’t
User avatar
Yakking
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 476
Joined: Oct 2007

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Yakking » Sun May 20 2018, 05:58

kiwiflyer wrote:Ugh no they don’t


The one I fly doesn't either.
I wish I had a catchy saying like everyone else...
User avatar
HOFO
New Member
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Aug 2019

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby HOFO » Fri Jun 17 2022, 02:54

coptathat
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 53
Joined: Sep 2010

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby coptathat » Thu Jun 23 2022, 04:50

Straight from the report. Pretty damning that the ATSB are willing to go to print with a scenario 2 that is in contradiction with the only living witness!

"In an alternative scenario (2), if the instructor had taken over control of the helicopter after the first approach, the pilot under supervision would not be obligated to monitor the primary flight display. As such, management of the flight path would rely on the instructor, and 2 of the factors to be considered later - instrument panel configuration and capability in degraded visual cueing environments - might have affected the capacity of the instructor to control the flight path.

The ATSB acknowledges that the instructor recalled taking over 300 ft and the ADS-B data shows a partial recovery from that point. However, the instructor did not recall the sequence of events in detail, and recollection of circuit position before the impact was incorrect. Given memory of an event can be distorted by various factors, the ATSB considered the conditions that related to scenario 2.

In principle, the scenario in which the instructor takes over control to relieve the pilot under
supervision after the go-around has instructional advantages. By taking over, the instructor can provide feedback with a demonstration of technique and desired outcome while allowing the pilot under supervision to rest, observe and assimilate information.

A further consideration for the instructor is the time available to transfer the marine pilot from Squireship to the port then return to C1/C2 to pick up the marine pilot from the following outbound ship. The shipping schedule did not allow for any additional flying time so after the missed approach, there was an operational imperative to land off the next approach. In that context, it would generally be an advantage for an MPT-qualified instructor to take over control. However, on this occasion the instructor might have considered that workload associated with cross-cockpit instrument scanning, and prior experience in a degraded visual cueing environment nullified the advantages of taking over. And, if the instructor felt fatigued, the monitoring task might have been
considered less risk than controlling the helicopter.

The ATSB noted a correlation between the second circuit around Squireship and the instructor's previously observed actions when flying at Port Hedland to not use a vertical upper mode in the circuit with high descent rates developing during the base turn. This suggests that instructor might have been flying the helicopter during the second circuit but was inconclusive.

The ATSB considered that the evidence related to who was flying the helicopter during the second circuit was ambiguous. Irrespective of who was controlling the helicopter, the prime responsibility of the instructor as pilot in command was to ensure the safety of the flight."
bwm85
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 15
Joined: Oct 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby bwm85 » Thu Jun 23 2022, 12:15

“In addition, the instructor had not been able to ensure that previous circling approaches flown in degraded visual cueing environments were consistent with the operator's standard operating procedures (SOPs), which probably limited the support provided to the pilot under supervision on the occurrence flight. As a related risk factor, the instructor did not report the previous deviations from SOPs or take other preventive/corrective action.”
LVDT
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 49
Joined: Mar 2011

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby LVDT » Thu Jun 23 2022, 22:09

A few observations in addition -

"Degraded visual cueing environment" = pitch black.

The flight path on the last approach would seem to be in the opposite direction to which the vessel was steaming and with the same airspeed the change in relative would be 2 times the vessel speed.

i.e. not taking wind into account, when approaching in the same direction as the vessel the closing speed and sight picture = IAS minus the vessel speed. For ease of arithmetic 60-15 = 45 relative. This becomes the perceived "normal".

When approaching in the opposite direction to the vessel the closing speed is 60+15 = 75 relative. If you try and achieve the same "normal" sight of 45 relative it would be a difference of 30 and the visual perceived "normal" approach will be 60 -30 = 30 if you have lost SA as to the direction the vessel is steaming.

Actual wind direction would be a doddle as the 135 will tell you all the time on the ND but only if the Garmin GPS, in this case, is selected in Direct TO anywhere or an active Flightplan is selected.

Even if coupled with "upper modes" i.e. HDG and ALT engaged which requires you to be above 60 knots to engage, unless power is managed the aircraft will not disengage when you go below 60 knots and will try and maintain ALT by pitching the nose up if below Vy with insufficient power to maintain level flight. What do you do when the perceived closing speed is too high? Reduce power. The profile would have been similar if fully coupled.

When in a "degraded visual cueing environment" and in a mixture of visual and instrument conditions tape-style indicators are not the best as you actually have to look at them and read the numbers, unlike an analogue display where just the angle of the needle is enough in your peripheral view. Both PFD and Standby were tape-style this is covered in the report.

The EC135 has a "rigid rotor" system. Really? I wonder what the dampers are for then? Hingeless and (nearly) bearingless rotor but actually fully articulated with a large flapping hinge offset closer to reality.

Return to “I heard...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests