A Good Call Guys!

[tDawe]

Perhaps some enterprising soul could invent a camera mounted on the fuselage or tail (with some serious vibration dampening mounts no doubt) If the technology can exist to put it on the back of a minivan perhaps a nice wide angle camera pointed at the tail might help. I'm not saying it should replace proper situational awareness, and no one is arguing the merits of turning the aircraft about the tail rather then mast. But maybe, just maybe, it might help.

 

I also think MMike is right about mirrors, maybe the 76 needs mirrors. **** if you were really crazy you could mount 'em on a spring hinge and let the wind resistance fold them back towards the fuselage as the aircraft speeds up. Maybe a convex lens in the door frame? But I don't know if it would be able to see past the fuselage as it widens further back, and the depth perception would be distorted no doubt.

 

150' by 150' landing areas all the time would be great, but helicopters will always have to go into confined areas, that's what makes them helicopters. (well, that and the price tag.) So why not augment the training with some visual clues whenever you can? It's no replacement for proper maneuvering, but maybe it can help.

[MMike]

Geneva among others have tail mounted ENG cameras......

 

side note: That was the THIRD TIME someone has said I was right today!!!

[pilot5]

Not an unrealistic comparison P5. I'm not sure about a straight A model however the A+ with Arriel 1S1 engines gives 650bhp/engine. The C++ with 2S2 engines gives 1032bhp/engine! In essence you're getting an extra 30% power for around a 5% increase in ZFW. A big difference and very much like comparing a 206 to a B3. Put simply one will tower out of a confined area with a decent load while the other won't. So yes a C model would have made a huge difference in the crews options given this scenario.

 

Dissapponting to see this thread going pear shaped. I would have thought there were a **** of alot to discuss & learn from this incident. I'm certainly interested to know why in a place like BC where the possibilty of confined area/mountainous/difficult landings would be pretty high they chose to operate 76's? Ontario l can understand.

 

Thought so Too.

 

The A is gutless. Old technology and the Bell 206 of the Sikorsky world. To answer to question of why they use an A model. This is probably based on what the contract is paying... ???

 

P5

[coolhand110]

I guess nobody listened last time, so once more for them, this took place at sea level with an OAT of 6-8 degrees. They had about 1000 lbs of gas, and only 5 people on board, they could have easily verticaled out of that spot. That was not an issue at all!!!!! A,A+,A++,B,C,C+,C++ or a D would have been the same coming out of there. Now I know there will be critics here that will disagree with that, however, I have over 3000 hours on all of the 76's listed except the c and the D, not to mention many hours flying this particular aircraft doing the same job. Trust me when I say, you could have easily climbed up 1-200 feet on that day without any power issues.

 

As for a skidded aircraft, I have landed the 76 on more surfaces than I have skidded. From belly deep in snow, to swamps to creek beds, beaches, logging roads, sand pits and countless other spots, and the 76 does as well as a machine on skids. It is even great at off levels where many of these landings have taken place. I don't know where people get the idea that you can only land a 76 on prepared pads. These machines have been used for the last 30 odd years doing this job, they are great machines, not sure why guys are slamming them.

 

Cameras on the back stab would be great, and when you are not looking outside or at your guages, maybe you could check out the back camera. Convex mirrors on the inside of the doors are great for seeing what is going on arround the sides of your machine if others are working around it while you are running.

 

And for the record, a stright c model has the same engine as an A++. The A++ had a max gross of 10,800 while the c is 11,700, which makes the C about as powerful as an A. A C+ is much better. Now if I am wrong with this, please feel free to let me know.

[coolhand110]

And MMIKE, Congrats on someone saying that you were right 3 times today, I have not been told that in a very long time!!!

 

Curtis

[R22Captain]

Curtis.....you are right with everything you said above!

 

*there....that's 1*

[MMike]

And MMIKE, Congrats on someone saying that you were right 3 times today, I have not been told that in a very long time!!!

 

Curtis

 

I hate to brag.....but I actually made it to an unprecedented 4!!!

 

"proof":

 

… And for all posterity … “I agree with Mike”

 

 

 

Three times in one day … What do they say? … Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a trend?

 

 

 

I think I'm going to take tomorrow off.......

[coolhand110]

Thanks R22 Captain. I was hoping that MMIKE would give me a thumbs up, but no luck.

[MMike]

Thanks R22 Captain. I was hoping that MMIKE would give me a thumbs up, but no luck.

 

I would if I knew what you were talking about. S76 has a spinny thing on the top that whacks into wires?

[coolhand110]

Understood, the same as you talking about Cat or Cummins with a 13, 15 or 18 speed, or you telling us the difference between a set of A, B ,or C trains. Or sliding the 5th wheel or the dollies on the trailer. Your logbook however would be somewhat the same context to ours anyways. A scale to us is much different though, although, just as critical.

 

Cheers