Jump to content

CTD

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CTD

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    YOW
  • Interests
    .

Recent Profile Visitors

5,703 profile views
  1. An operator (who will remain nameless, but operates red helicopters with a white stripe) just has a problem with water in supposedly 'sealed' drums from a mom-and-pop operation. Turns out, 'recycled' drums were used, instead of the 'new' drums specified in the contract. The recycled drums had degraded welds in the bungs, and voilà - water ingress. Test every drum. Full stop.
  2. Hey Bob, It doesn't get any easier. Remember your friends and colleagues fondly, and vocally; this is how they live forever. That the unwashed cannot appreciate their loss should not concern you, but make you stronger. Brad
  3. Let's hope Mr. Jones can enter into some meaningful relationship with TC, and shed this adversarial raison d'être that HAC has become known for. You get more flies with honey, Fred. It's a knelling - wake to it.
  4. Flights over Open-air Assemblies of Persons or Built-up Areas - Helicopters with External Loads 602.16 (1) No person shall operate a helicopter that is carrying a Class B, C or D external load over an open-air assembly of persons. (2) Except where authorized under section 603.66 or 702.22, no person shall operate a helicopter that is carrying a Class B, C or D external load over a built-up area.
  5. Very nicely handled, Walter. Glad the boys are going to be alright.
  6. If you're into the whole 'climate change' thing, CBC News has featured this project in their "Arctic Nights" segment. CBC Arctic Nights
  7. I think they're taking this whole Arctic sovereignty thing a little too seriously...
  8. Agreed, and please appreciate that I'm advocating one position for the sake of argument. I don't doubt your sincerity one bit. The perfect world is as elusive as ever, and in a previous post, I called the Flight Safety sim 'adequate'. It's far from perfect. I believe that you and I have had this discussion in person at HAC in YVR with a beer in our hands.
  9. I'm not dissing sim training as a concept, in fact I think it's the best thing to hit the helicopter world since turbine engines and rum in plastic bottles. What I am saying is that I believe the pilot is better served by experiencing this training in an environment where he or she is not constantly having to think about what's different between what I'm doing here and what I'd have to do back home. This option exists, and it's called a 212 sim - but it's ever-so-slightly more expensive. Again, one of the reasons I feel that way is because I have flown all three types, and have made mistakes after jumping in a 146 after a period of flying 412EPs.
  10. I'm not sure that's possible I agree with you to a point, Jerry, but since most of us experience a direct reversion to our training when confronted with an emergency, we must be very careful not to 'negative train'. The CH-146 and the 212 share almost nothing, except a basic silhouette and different variations of the PT6-T. - The handling qualities are different in many ways, partly because of the four v. two blade characteristics, but also for certain procedures (i.e. must switch off APs during run-on landing in 412) - The autopilots are different. The SPZ-7600 and Bell AFCS could not be less similar. The Sperry system found in a handful of 212s shares little more than heritage with its SPZ cousin. - The fuel system is different. The 412 has 10 cells and transfer pumps, the 212 has 5 cells and jet pumps. - The AC electrical system is different - 3 inverters vs 2. - All engine and transmission performance limitations are different - The hydraulic and governor switch placement in the CH-146 is different than the 212 or 412, and the fuel panel in the 412 / 146 is different than the 212. - Engine / mast torque systems are different. With this many differences in the propulsion, electrical, autopilot and fuel systems, coupled with dissimilar handling qualities, certain emergency procedures, and cockpit layout, I see the potential for negative training. At this point, the box becomes little more than Microsoft Flight Sim X (said with tongue planted firmly in cheek), and basically becomes a full-motion Level C IFR trainer. I have flown the 212, 412 and CH-146, and will admit to bringing well-trained 412 habits into the 146, and back into the 212. They are two different type endorsements for a reason. Really though, the Gagetown thing was all about saving money, not trying to provide better training. An adequate 212 sim resides in Dallas, but that's farther away and this whole arguement took place in the day of the $1.65 US dollar.
  11. Hmmm. The FDR would have given them some lateral acceleration data from HUMS, but they'd have to have been lucky to tag the accident sequence with the sampling rate. The other HUMS parameters would have been pretty much useless for sim programming - if I remember correctly it sampled radial and axial vibration on the tail rotor as trend monitoring only. It's been a while. And even then, you have a snapshot of how that particular aircraft behaved, at that gross weight, c/g, Hd and airspeed, and all FDR data will be corrupted by the actions of the crew. Still, if it's a handfull, it's probably fairly representative of the real thing IN A GRIFFON. The 212 is a different beast, and the use of this sim for 212 training is just plain wrong.
  12. Hey Outwest, good to see you around. You're 100% correct in your statements regarding simulators, but your source has led you astray a little. The reason it is impossible to simulate a tail rotor drive failure with accuracy has nothing to do with keel effect, or any other aerodynamic function. Simulators are programmed from flight test data, which is expensive, and only exists for what's inside the four corners of the flight envelope and a very small percentage beyond it. Since we don't traditionally get flight test data for tail rotor failures, at least not on purpose, simulator fidelity for these scenarios is based on predictions. In my former life, I have flown CRJ and Challenger sims to do high altitude stalls and takeoffs with degraded performance due to surface contamination. BA's Flight Test folks reminded us constantly that the sim fidelity and performance for those flight regimes was not accurate, and the tests proved to be almost useless for what we wanted to achieve. Additionally, research 'simulators' used by manufacturers are not big boxes they strap themselves into and virtually fly around in, but computer models. All that said, your assessment of how we should treat sim training is spot on. Cheers, BV
  13. Size doesn't matter, it's the quality of the food.
  14. Thanks 47. AvWorld is out of stock, but they expect some in a week or so. VIP doesn't carry any helicopter stuff anymore, according the guy I spoke to there this week.
×
×
  • Create New...