skullcap Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 Strange but very true sense of legalities here am afraid. Very few of these windows come without the upper window, think it is some sort of protection from crap going down the hole. The only ones have seen installed were in non longlining(is that a word?) helicopters. It is in my opinion a flight hazard to have the upper window installed. Now how about the lower one? I can see arguements regarding the lower window in bad shape thus unservicable, ,,,,there is a difference there than just taking it out for convenience,,,,I think it is called due dilligence. I have had the window blow out in flight(improperly installed) the aicraft flew normally. IMHO the manufacturer of window should be requested to have a deviation from the stc for windowless flight. I worked with a pilot who landed in snow heliskiing and the pushed the window in thus filled the belly with snow causing the flight controls to have some binding until he cleaned it out, so perhaps should be required to not even have the aluminum cover over the window so the location(in or gooooone) can be monitored..... :down: what do you call it,, continued airworthiness? I do beleive I saw some kind of window where the hole was an actual tunnel downward, this would solve alot of problems and if something fell down it would not jam controls and would have similar liabilities as something getting sucked out a window, perhaps put a lip on it so bottles etc wouldn't roll into the tube,,,,,, :up: I really don't think airflow is an issue, I mean look at the belly of these machines the number of holes and size of the holes is as consistant as dog piss on your lawn. It is just a matter of coming to a solution which is safe and makes the job better while being "legal" cheers sc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.