Jump to content

Finnair

Member
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Finnair last won the day on March 12 2012

Finnair had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Finnair

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Helicopter manufacturers have GARA (General Aviation Revitalization Act) – Signed into law in the US in 1994, GARA dictates that no civil action for damages for death or injury may be brought against a manufacturer of an aircraft – or for any component, system, subassembly, or any other part of an aircraft – in the US 18 years after the initial date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser, lessee, lessor or seller of that particular aircraft. GARA was initially designed to protect general aircraft manufacturers from seemingly endless liability suits. In other words, in the US, there is no recourse for operators of helicopters built prior to 1994. When the manufacturers of aircraft and parts are exempt from liability, the exposed groups will be pilots, companies and maintenance facilities, or in this case, the engine manufacturer. Although GARA is not applicable in Canada, I suspect that the level of legalise required to make it stick here would be fairly easy. The fact that that many people reading this forum are actually flying/fixing aircraft that are certified to a standard that existed prior to their birth should be of concern. Given the information on this verdict, I would suspect that GE will have a very good chance with their appeal of this decision. Fly safe W
  2. Wow! Death threats, blacklists, fear, intimidation, cash, helicopters........ I don’t think anyone has an issue with remaining anonymous, especially after reading some of the previous posts. Only downside is you shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously. It can be a tough business – most everyone knew that coming in. I sincerely hope some of your real lives are not as bad as portrayed here. Wayne
  3. The forums here on Vertical are pretty entertaining.....for the most part. I believe that the intent of the Vertical Forum is and should be entertaining, but more importantly, it should be a way and means to openly discuss issues that reflect concerns/current issues that are important to anyone associated with this industry. Despite our differences of opinions, everyone in this industry plays a part, some big, some small, in shaping how we conduct our day to day activities. This forum is a mixture of everyone. It truly is a representation of the Canadian helicopter industry, and includes the good, the bad, and more recently, the ugly. I believe it is time to return this forum to a higher standard. Too many good people have been turned off by all the crap that seems to descend into almost every thread, and have simply opted to sit on the side lines or close accounts and leave this site. If you want to be part of the solution, sign your real name to your posts. We all have unique opinions and views of topics that come up on these forums and I believe that every one of these opinions brings something to the discussion. All of us are on a continuing education program through our entire lives, and if you really think you know it all, you still have something to learn. Posters who hide behind anonymous names are a reality of the internet. It allows people to make comments and accusations without consequence. These can be entertaining. They can be bizarre. They can also be very damaging to individuals and companies. A forum discussion using real names is going to be far more educational and realistic than a conversation between “Fluffy69 and BigStickWillie.” If you post inflammatory or libelous statements using an alias, other posters should be able to request that your true identity be revealed. I am not a computer expert, but I would think this could be accomplished along the same lines as the rating system now in place. Some will say that using an alias is their right and part of the internet. No argument there. Feel free to make entertaining statements, but don’t cross that line where individuals or companies are slandered. It reflects very poorly on this industry and in the end, it hurts us all. Going forward, I would invite the true helicopter people on this site to come back, stand up and be counted. Your opinions, experience and comments are valued. Wayne Finn Finnair Ltd.
  4. Actually, almost 60% of twin engine failures begin with total loss of power to both engines. (NASA) My point was not that there are any more or less engine failures in a twin, but the fact that the possibility of a structural or component failure in a twin is almost identical to the possibility of an engine failure in a single. So in regards to long lining in a twin or a single, are you better prepared for a structural/component failure or an engine failure? For a line patrol or heli-skiing, the same stats apply. Training, experience, good engineering, SMS – all are key to safe operations, as you eluded to, whether you are flying a twin or a single. You might want to revisit the claim regarding a 355N for longline rescue operations. With OEI, one pilot, one technician, one victim and minimum fuel, you would not (according to my old 355N OEI HOGE charts) even be able to lift off the ground in Canmore on a standard day, let alone try and perform any type of rescue at 6000’+. Your B2 or Lama is much better suited for that type of operation. Wayne
  5. 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
  6. The above numbers in post #42 were based on Bell Helicopters Fleet. Twin Engine machines are 212, 222, 230, 214ST, 412, 430. Single Engine are 206, 206L/L3/L4, 204, 205, 407, 214. I would expect that the higher percentage of injuries could be attributed partially to a slightly higher seat capacity in the Bell twin engine machines, although I have no numbers to confirm this. NASA on the other hand, does identify a “disturbing trend” which identifies a higher fatality rate with larger helicopters which are capable of carrying more passengers. NASA puts the fatality rate of single engine helicopter accidents at 0.42 fatalities per accident, and twin engine accidents at 1.06 per accident. Despite the amount of serious injuries or fatalities from accidents, the overall accident rate per 100,000 flight hours is almost identical between single and twin engine helicopters. As previously stated, twin turbine helicopters may reduce the frequency of engine failures, but the increase in airframe/component failures may offset any advantage to twin turbine. Wayne
  7. ”Engine Material Failure (MF) initiated the crashes that caused 14.8 percent of the serious injuries to occupants of single-turbine helicopters, as compared to only 3.4 percent for the serious injuries to the occupants of twin-turbine helicopter accidents. If only this one piece of information is considered, the obvious conclusion is that two engines are better than one. However, next consider only the cause factor of material failures other than engine (non-engine MF). In this case, only 11.0 percent of the seriously injured occupants were involved in single-turbine helicopter crashes initiated by non-engine material failures as compared with 31.0 percent of those in twin- turbine helicopter crashes. This is an indicator of the detrimental effects of complexity and more parts. If one were to consider only this last piece of information, the obvious approach should be that one engine is better than two – a reversal of the previous paragraph. Actually, the total material failures, engine and non-engine, should be considered together, which yields percentages of seriously injured occupants due to all types of MF-caused accidents of 25.8 percent for occupants in single turbines and 34.4 percent for occupants in twins. This is consistent with more parts and complexities being present in twins. Because causes of death and injury cannot be limited only to those that are engine related, it is essential that all other factors be considered – both material failure and non-material failure (i.e., human error) “ The above excerpt is not from a dead 19th century British Prime Minister, but is from Mr. Roy G. Fox who is the Chief of Product Safety Engineering for Bell Helicopter Textron. It is based on over fifty million flight hours on the worldwide Bell civil fleet which numbers around 30,000 helicopters. Vortex was very accurate in his post that 85% of all accidents are a result of human error. Bell puts the number at 84%. Jerry – No, you did not understand my comments correctly. And to quote your friend Disraeli: “What we anticipate seldom occurs; but what we least expect generally happens” Hope to see lots of operators at the BC Hydro “get-together” on the 23th and 25th of this month. Wayne
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. In addition to the previous post, according to the NTSB, nearly 45% of all first event loss of power accidents, twin or single turbine, can be directly traced to human error. (Fuel/Air mixture, fuel starvation, fuel exhaustion, fuel contamination) 20 minute reserves? Wayne
  11. 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
×
×
  • Create New...