Accident while "hot refueling" helicopter
Curtis Wheeler
OK. I am not a helicopter pilot. And I have only flown in a Jet Ranger
a couple of times. But this seemed nuts to me so tell me if I am right
to wonder "why".
Is it standard operating procedure for the passengers AND THE PILOT to
leave a helicopter while it is being fueled but still powered up and
idling? Seems kinda risky to me.
I ask because this was apparently the case this morning (11/25) when KGO
Radio's traffic helicopter (a Jet Ranger) was totaled near the San
Francisco Bay.
The pilot and two reporters had left the helicopter while it was idling
and being fueled. Witnesses said the chopper lifted a few feet off the
ground for no apparent reason and flipped over.
Nobody was hurt.
--
Curtis
Tom Dygert
The chopper will not liftoff at flight idle. However, as you can see, its not
a good idea to leave a helicopter unattended no matter what caused this
mishap.
Ed Chernenkoff
Tom.D...@lmco.com (Tom Dygert) wrote:
>In article <329A9B...@ricochet.net>, Curtis Wheeler <cwhe...@ricochet.net> says:
>>
>>OK. I am not a helicopter pilot. And I have only flown in a Jet Ranger
>>a couple of times. But this seemed nuts to me so tell me if I am right
>>to wonder "why".
>>
>>Is it standard operating procedure for the passengers AND THE PILOT to
>>leave a helicopter while it is being fueled but still powered up and
>>idling? Seems kinda risky to me.
>>
>>I ask because this was apparently the case this morning (11/25) when KGO
>>Radio's traffic helicopter (a Jet Ranger) was totaled near the San
>>Francisco Bay.
>>
>>The pilot and two reporters had left the helicopter while it was idling
>>and being fueled. Witnesses said the chopper lifted a few feet off the
>>ground for no apparent reason and flipped over.
>>
>>Nobody was hurt.
>>
>>--
>>Curtis
>
The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny piec=
es. Apart from being against the Air Regs. (Canada) to not have the pilot seat occupied by a competent person at the controls it is =
done fairly often.
This is another reason to have the passengers outside of the heli.
As for lifting off a couple of feet - only a couple of things come to mind.
- not at flight idle but 100% power
- at flight idle but a large gust of wind picked it up
The refuelling wouldn't have lifted it off the ground as the more fuel goes in the heavier it gets and the less it wants to leave th=
e ground.
Maybe the explosion lifted it off...
ED
Ed Penick
In article <329A9B...@ricochet.net>,
Curtis Wheeler <cwhe...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>OK. I am not a helicopter pilot. And I have only flown in a
Jet Ranger
>a couple of times. But this seemed nuts to me so tell me if
I am right
>to wonder "why".
>
>Is it standard operating procedure for the passengers AND THE
PILOT to
>leave a helicopter while it is being fueled but still powered
up and
>idling? Seems kinda risky to me.
>
>I ask because this was apparently the case this morning
(11/25) when KGO
>Radio's traffic helicopter (a Jet Ranger) was totaled near
the San
>Francisco Bay.
>
>The pilot and two reporters had left the helicopter while it
was idling
>and being fueled. Witnesses said the chopper lifted a few
feet off the
>ground for no apparent reason and flipped over.
>
>Nobody was hurt.
>
refueling is done with the right seat pilot dismounted and
acting as a fire guard, while the left seater stays at the
controls. This allows him to perform an emergency shutdown if
anything goes wrong.
CW4 Ed Penick
OH-58D(I) SIP
SCOUTS OUT!
Max Hacker
In the U.S. Army it is SOP for all passengers and non-essential crew to
stand in a designated safe area while a helicopter is being hot-fueled.
This SOP has its deviations through commanders discretion. While in the
field while flying scouts (OH-58 A,C,D's) my units SOP deviated from the
norm. My co-pilot did not leave the aircraft. This saved time to return to
the holding area or FLOT (Forward Line Of Troops).
Curtis Wheeler <cwhe...@ricochet.net> wrote in article
<329A9B...@ricochet.net>...
> OK. I am not a helicopter pilot. And I have only flown in a Jet Ranger
> a couple of times. But this seemed nuts to me so tell me if I am right
> to wonder "why".
>
> Is it standard operating procedure for the passengers AND THE PILOT to
> leave a helicopter while it is being fueled but still powered up and
> idling? Seems kinda risky to me.
>
> I ask because this was apparently the case this morning (11/25) when KGO
> Radio's traffic helicopter (a Jet Ranger) was totaled near the San
> Francisco Bay.
>
> The pilot and two reporters had left the helicopter while it was idling
> and being fueled. Witnesses said the chopper lifted a few feet off the
> ground for no apparent reason and flipped over.
>
> Nobody was hurt.
>
> --
> Curtis
>
Stan Gosnell
Curtis Wheeler <cwhe...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>Is it standard operating procedure for the passengers AND THE PILOT to
>leave a helicopter while it is being fueled but still powered up and
>idling? Seems kinda risky to me.
No. Passengers, yes, but the pilot should always be at the controls.
Hot refueling is common, & usually not a problem, since kerosene is
not that hazardous.
>I ask because this was apparently the case this morning (11/25) when KGO
>Radio's traffic helicopter (a Jet Ranger) was totaled near the San
>Francisco Bay.
>The pilot and two reporters had left the helicopter while it was idling
>and being fueled. Witnesses said the chopper lifted a few feet off the
>ground for no apparent reason and flipped over.
That's why the pilot should always be at the controls. The Jet Ranger
has no friction for the throttle, & the friction for the cyclic can be
erratic. The 206L series in particular is known for having the
throttle go to full on by itself, since it is spring-loaded to do so
in the event of a malfunction. I have had the throttle go up by
itself while I was doing paperwork or whatever, but you can catch it
if you are in the seat. If you are outside the aircraft, the only
thing you can do is watch it crash, & hope the flying pieces miss you,
& I assure you the pieces will fly. I have personally seen pieces go
more than 1/4 mile from a crash, & go through a van at that distance.
IMHO, anyone who leaves a running helicopter vacant is a total fool.
I see it a lot, & it always scares me to death.
rop...@aol.com
"Hot aircraft refueling" is a very controversial subject in the civil heli
world. I really can't think of any reason to leave the aircraft
"pilotless" while doing this (unless the pilot has to do the refueling).
It can and is done safely every day but is usually performed when there is
a need and passengers are not a consideration (forestry, firefighting,
rescue, etc.). BTW, I've never heard of an aircraft catching fire during
a refuel although I'm sure there are cases on record. Your incident was
extremely unusual. The feds frown on any heli pilot leaving a spinning
rotor unattended.
Roy Smith
st...@hal-pc.org writes:
> IMHO, anyone who leaves a running helicopter vacant is a total fool.
> I see it a lot, & it always scares me to death.
A few years back, at a particularly booring dinner that I didn't really want
to be at all that much, I discovered that one of the people sitting at the
table with me had been a chopper pilot, instructor in fact, in Vietnam. He
proceeded to keep me entertained all night with war stories. One of which
concerned a time when he left his bird running un-attended, sitting by the
side of a cliff. He watched as it picked itself up, floated over to the
edge of the cliff, and then proceeded to fall over said cliff in a large
fireball. Fortunately, nobody was hurt, and the army's reaction seemed to
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
M.D. Cobb
Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
> The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny pieces.
Hmmmm, shouldn't the aircraft and the fueling system be grounded?
Although I must admit, that even with aircraft to fuel system grounding
we had 2 helo fires while hot refueling in Antarctica due to the
extremely dry humidity and the lack of a reasonable 'real' ground to
earth.
Just thoughts,
Cobber
Ed Chernenkoff
While grounding the heli and fuel delivery system will definitely reduce
the risk, an unknown faulty ground could still rear its ugle head. The
only SAFE way is to shut the machine off and then ground, then refuel.
All too often we pilots are put in a position, whether self-induced or
company pressured, to get the job done and shutting the machine down to
refuel wastes time. Filling out reports and job resumes takes more time
in the end...
Just ramblings
Ed
Bill Sykes
Curtis Wheeler <cwhe...@ricochet.net> wrote:
>OK. I am not a helicopter pilot. And I have only flown in a Jet Ranger
>a couple of times. But this seemed nuts to me so tell me if I am right
>to wonder "why".
>Is it standard operating procedure for the passengers AND THE PILOT to
>leave a helicopter while it is being fueled but still powered up and
>idling? Seems kinda risky to me.
>I ask because this was apparently the case this morning (11/25) when KGO
>Radio's traffic helicopter (a Jet Ranger) was totaled near the San
>Francisco Bay.
>The pilot and two reporters had left the helicopter while it was idling
>and being fueled. Witnesses said the chopper lifted a few feet off the
>ground for no apparent reason and flipped over.
>Nobody was hurt.
>--
>Curtis
Well Curtis, I fly helicopters to the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico
and it is standard procedure to "hot reuel". There is nothing wrong
with it as long as everyone is paying attention during its execution.
On dual pilot A/C we leave the passengers on board and a pilot remains
at the controls. On single pilot A/C the pilot must shut down if he
has to grt out for any reason.
As the humidity is fairly high in this area, static electricity is not
a real problem. Also the hoses are internally grounded, and a
secondary ground wire is used.
As for the helicopter becoming airborne I tend to agree with one of
the previous responses, that a gust of wind must have come into play.
This could move the helicopter even at flight idle. When I was in the
Army in Texas, we had a straight line wind come through our flight
line. It turned every A/C at least 90 degrees even though they were
tied down. It also picked up several OH58s and tossed them about. They
were tied down also, but the wind force either snapped the ropes, or
pulled the tiedown itself out of the ground. We lost alot of A/C that
day. Being you said it happened around SF Bay, I would not rule the
wind out. Hope this was some help to you.
Bill Sykes
ATP S-76
buck...@aol.com
Hot Refueling of Helicopters can be (And is) done safely every day in the
Army and
Marine Corps. The Pilot is NOT SUPPOSED to leave the cockpit. The PILOT
is supposed to
maintain control over the operating helicopter at ALL TIMES. Any pilot
that gets out of a helo
while it is operating, is asking for trouble. Even the helicopters that
have a good positive
collective lock (or friction lock) could still be afected by wind gusts.
As to static charges causing a fire (BULLSHIT!) If the proper grounding
techniques are
followed, there is damn little chance of any sparks being generated by the
static
created by the friction in the transfer of the fuel.
1. Ground the fuel supply (Truck or tank) to the earth.
2. Ground the fuel supply (Truck or tank) to the aircraft.
3. Ground the fuel nozzle to the aircraft, before pumping fuel.
Life is HARD!
It's HARDER if you're STUPID!
David L. Wasylenko
life must be real hard for you!
Stan Gosnell
"M.D. Cobb" <co...@apci.net> wrote:
>Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
>
>> The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny pieces.
>
>Hmmmm, shouldn't the aircraft and the fueling system be grounded?
>Although I must admit, that even with aircraft to fuel system grounding
>we had 2 helo fires while hot refueling in Antarctica due to the
>extremely dry humidity and the lack of a reasonable 'real' ground to
>earth.
>
>Just thoughts,
>Cobber
I have never heard of static charges blowing helicopters into little
tiny pieces. Fires have occurred, mainly with avgas. However, PHI
has been hot refueling continuously since 1949, literally thousands of
times per day (about 300 helos in service at a time), & has NEVER had
a fire. Care is required, & we NEVER leave the cockpit with engines
running.
Fires are very rare, usually occurring under unusual circumstances.
Low humidity is not a problem in the Gulf of Mexico, & the ground is
always run through the fuel hose. We don't use fuel hoses without a
ground built into it, plus a ground clip, so the helo is grounded with
both the fuel nozzle and a ground wire.
Jim Lewis
> While grounding the heli and fuel delivery system will definitely reduce
> the risk, an unknown faulty ground could still rear its ugle head. The
> only SAFE way is to shut the machine off and then ground, then refuel.
> All too often we pilots are put in a position, whether self-induced or
> company pressured, to get the job done and shutting the machine down to
> refuel wastes time. Filling out reports and job resumes takes more time
> in the end...
>
> Just ramblings
> Ed
Also engine cycle times are an importent component to hot refueling helicopters.
Keeps the DOC down.
--
Just an opinion mindya
Starduster SA-100 4/sale
le...@pacbell.net
__________|__________
\ \_0_/ /
__\___(_+_)___/__
|/ \|
|...........................|
M.D. Cobb
Stan Gosnell wrote:
> I have never heard of static charges blowing helicopters into little
> tiny pieces. Fires have occurred, mainly with avgas. However, PHI
> has been hot refueling continuously since 1949, literally thousands of
> times per day (about 300 helos in service at a time), & has NEVER had
> a fire. Care is required, & we NEVER leave the cockpit with engines
> running.
>
> Fires are very rare, usually occurring under unusual circumstances.
> Low humidity is not a problem in the Gulf of Mexico, & the ground is
> always run through the fuel hose. We don't use fuel hoses without a
> ground built into it, plus a ground clip, so the helo is grounded with
> both the fuel nozzle and a ground wire.
Hmmm, OK. I've hot refueled on metal platforms surrounded by sea water
a few times myself (ships) and I agree with everything you said above.
I've even hot refueled without being on any platfrom (HIFR) and haven't
seen a fire either.
I would like to apologize however. On reflection I recall that the 2
fires I mentioned previously were specifically caused by static
electricity even though the helo was grounded to ground and the fueling
system (JP), but the aircraft were shut down and NOT hot refueling.
M.D. Cobb co...@apci.net
ATP-RH, COM-ASEL, CFI-RH, ASEL, IA, IH
m-2...@mailbox.swipnet.se
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In the U.S. Army it is SOP for all passengers and non-essential crew to
>stand in a designated safe area while a helicopter is being hot-fueled.
>This SOP has its deviations through commanders discretion. While in the
>field while flying scouts (OH-58 A,C,D's) my units SOP deviated from the
>norm. My co-pilot did not leave the aircraft. This saved time to return to
>the holding area or FLOT (Forward Line Of Troops).
When we hot-fuel non of the passengers or crew are to leave the
chopper, and the only things that the crew do before we start refuling
is to turn the radio and equeal eq off. The chopper is still at max
power.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Björn Petersson
Helicopter Mechanic
Swedish Army AF2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Beelman
Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
>
> "M.D. Cobb" <co...@apci.net> wrote:
> >Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
> >
> >> The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny pieces.
> >
> >Hmmmm, shouldn't the aircraft and the fueling system be grounded?
> >Although I must admit, that even with aircraft to fuel system grounding
> >we had 2 helo fires while hot refueling in Antarctica due to the
> >extremely dry humidity and the lack of a reasonable 'real' ground to
> >earth.
> >
> >Just thoughts,
> >Cobber
>
> the risk, an unknown faulty ground could still rear its ugle head. The
> only SAFE way is to shut the machine off and then ground, then refuel.
> All too often we pilots are put in a position, whether self-induced or
> company pressured, to get the job done and shutting the machine down to
> refuel wastes time. Filling out reports and job resumes takes more time
> in the end...
>
> Just ramblings
> Ed
First off, in response to Ed, it takes more time to get the pilot and
passengeres out of the helicopter to refuel. Whether you have pressure from your
company or not, safety should never be compromised. There is no reason for the pilot
not to be at the controls when hot refueling. I'd rather fill out job resumes and
reports, than compromise the safety of myself and more importantly, my passengers.
There will always be pressure to get things done quickly and cut corners, but safety
should always come first. A company would rather you take the time to ensure safety
than blow up a helicopter.
Sara Beelman
Jim Wright
In article <32A8A7...@mail.usinternet.com>,
Robert Beelman <rbee...@mail.usinternet.com> wrote:
>Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
>>
>> "M.D. Cobb" <co...@apci.net> wrote:
>> >Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
>> >
>> >> The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge
could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny pieces.
I fairly well doubt that the helicopter will *blow* itself into tiny pieces,
quite an imagination there. Catch fire, maybe, burn into a puddle of slag,
maybe, get someone hurt in the process, maybe. Explode, hardly.
After having survived a thousand or so hot refuelings, and witnessing
thousands more, I find it to be fairly safe.
The vast majority of hot refueling accidents occur as a result of equipment or
human error, and like most things, human error is the biggy. Grounding the
nozzle to the aircraft to eliminate static buildup due to fuel friction
inside the hose, and grounding the aircraft to disipate airframe static via
separate grounding cables eliminates static as a cause.
A fire usually requires a fairly large amount (multiple gallons) to be
somewhere other than where it's supposed to be - the fuel cell.
Jim Wright
Charles N. Ede
Dear Jim,
The danger of explosion is real, just as the fire is. Alitlle bit of
gassoline in a tank, filled with the fumes is a very explosive content.
Think of a spark caused by the static electricity of any of several
possible combination including static cahrge of the rotor, and explosion
is a rare but distinct possibility.
Check the FAA about this if you are unwilling to believe a individual.
A prudent pilot has a career of avoiding all the remote possibilities
that can create "accidents."
Charles Ede
Jeffrey Day
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:40:24 -0500, "Charles N. Ede" <cn...@iag.net>
wrote:
>
>> >> >> The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge
>> could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny pieces.
>
>
>The danger of explosion is real, just as the fire is. Alitlle bit of
>gassoline in a tank, filled with the fumes is a very explosive content.
>Think of a spark caused by the static electricity of any of several
>possible combination including static cahrge of the rotor, and explosion
>is a rare but distinct possibility.
>
Of course...this is why the military uses grounding cables on the
helos when we do hot refuels...
Jeffrey Day
CW2, IRR
Klaus P Kraemer
In <58rorh$k...@sleet.snowhill.com> ja...@snowhill.com (Jim Wright)
writes:
>I fairly well doubt that the helicopter will *blow* itself into tiny
pieces,
>quite an imagination there.
I'm getting in pretty late on this thread and haven't followed every
post, so forgive me if I'm duplicating this.
Whether or not, during an accident while hot-refueling, the helicopter
will blow itself into pieces depends on:
1) Is this Hollywood, and are we watching a movie?
2) Are we using Jet-A?
3) Are we using gasoline?
The flames are reddest in case 1).
Case 2) seems reasonably safe to me if proper precautions are taken
(helicopter and fuel truck grounded, pilot at the controls, person with
fire extinguisher in stand-by).
Case 3): Gee, I think that would be beyond my threshold. Do you think a
standard-size fire extinguisher, even if expertly handled, could
control burning (gushing?) gasoline?
I have been around helicopters from Jet Ranger to S-58T; they burn
Jet-A, which will extinguish a burning match someone might drop into
it; nonetheless precautions are necessary. But would you hot-fuel a
small helicopter with gasoline???
Klaus.
rhod...@aol.com
In article <32b2560a...@news.fcg.net>, jd...@fcg.net (Jeffrey Day)
writes:
>The danger of explosion is real, just as the fire is. Alitlle bit of
>>gassoline in a tank, filled with the fumes is a very explosive content.
>>Think of a spark caused by the static electricity of any of several
>>possible combination including static cahrge of the rotor, and explosion
>>is a rare but distinct possibility.
>>
>
>Of course...this is why the military uses grounding cables on the
>helos when we do hot refuels...
Sure the military uses grounding cables, the civilian airports are
supposed to use them too. That's why the fuel trucks have the ground
cable reels mounted on both sides of the vehicle. The only problem is
that as often as not, the airport hires someone at minimum wage to pump
gas and wash airplanes and these people can get careless about hooking the
cable up. I've seen a number of line personnel *not* hook up the
grounding cable before fueling.
Steve
Mike Rehbein
> Of course...this is why the military uses grounding cables on the
> helos when we do hot refuels...
>
> Jeffrey Day
> CW2, IRR
Ditto -
- and has anyone witnessed the length of static discharge in inches? :)
Did some Air Assault training at Ft. McKoy. Before slipping the loop of
a load to be slung into the waiting hovering Huey's hook, a second soldier
touches a grounding lead to the waiting hook via an insolated rod. This
draws an impressive arc, (depending on humidity?) He maintains contact
with the hook until the other soldier is clear.
As for a hot refuel, I would not want to be around if there were a
ground fault in the fueling equipment :)
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N0AGG ham radio | ---+---
| *---(_)
e-mail atah...@minn.net _______|
Frank Kearney
I think Jet-A is very safe as long as proper procedures are followed. In a
135 operation those procedures should be spelled out clearly in the manual.
I had the FAA attempt to stop me from hot fueling until I pointed out the
procedure was outlined in the manual they had signed off for the 135
ticket. As far as re-fuelers not attaching the static line, it attaches
usually on the skid, and it is always the pilots responsibility to ensure
things are done right. I don't think I would hot re-fuel a gasoline
powered helicopter, but then again you don't have start cycles to count in
a piston machine as in a turbine.
Regards,
FGK
P.S. What a nice newsgroup! Intelligent conversation even!!
Klaus P Kraemer <kla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<58vc8f$5...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
Orin Durey
Hello Turbo-B Rotorheads!
There may be a related thread here, especially regarding the news
yesterday that the PamAm 800 747 explosion may have been caused by
fuel vapours in the central fuel cell of the jumbojet. Fuel
heaters in an empty cell? Boeing has been told by the FAA to
redesign the fuel cells?! Today Boeing and MD merge?! What's up?
And 737's require immediate inspection of the rudders? This is 30-
year-old technology. Are we getting age-related bugs? What else
will happen next?
Two or three years ago a Bell 206 on floats hot refuelling at Hall
Beach, NWT, had a fire start at the range extender from an arc.
The shocked pilot stepped away from the machine and watched it
reduce itself to a pile of molten aluminum in a matter of minutes.
Many companies absolutely forbid pilots to hot refuel. Some
customers expect it. If I hot refuel, I *assume* the ground
connection is faulty, even with a ground wire between the
helicopter and the fuel drum I'm using, for instance, and act
accordingly. Jet-A, or even Jet-B in a partially full fuel tank,
will not support combustion. The ignition spark, if it occurs,
will happen at the opening in the range extender and burn down into
the tank. I keep a closed fuel cap on the fuel tank, opening it
only after I have tapped the fuel nozzle against the range
extender. I keep the nozzle in contact with metal during the
entire refuelling operation, reversing the procedure when I'm
finished. Even should a fire start at the range extender, if the
fuel cap is closed immediately, the fire will go out. Usually when
I pick up a machine for the season, there is no grounding wire for
any refuelling in the ops gear, so I always make one out of
whatever wire is available and a couple of alligator clips. Even
steel clothesline wire will dissipate static charges, and it's
handy because it's strong, and plastic-coated, but clear, so you
can see any breaks in it. It's also a good idea to check the
integrity of a ground wire installed at the fuel nozzle with a
continuity tester. Some of the new electric refuelling pumps being
used in the field are also electrically grounded to the helicopter
through the power plug.
Also, a lot of the references to static discharge on the newsgroup
refer to *airframe* electrical charges. The charges that develop
inside the fuel cell are from the sloshing around of the fuel. In
arctic conditions (-40 C), you can actually *see* the sparks inside
a plasic jerry can while you're pouring fuel out of it. This might
also be the source of the ignition on the 747 explosion.
_____
do...@freenet.carleton.ca Orin Durey, Baker Lake, NWT
Don't use REPLY, see my .SIG (Bruce Simpson)
do...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Orin Durey) wrote:
>There may be a related thread here, especially regarding the news
>yesterday that the PamAm 800 747 explosion may have been caused by
>fuel vapours in the central fuel cell of the jumbojet.
Excuse my ignorance (despite its magnitude), but I thought that turbines
ran on a fuel which was pretty similar to kerosene in its volatility and
flamability.
When atomised into a fine spray and subjected to ignition temperatures
while under compression it burns quite well - but just try and light it in
liquid form and you're out of luck. I remember trying to perform
fractional distilation on kerosene as a lad (with a meths burner under a
flask of kerosene). Even the dense white vapour which was given off by the
boiling liquid would not ignite under normal pressures.
How then could a fuel tank inside a comparitively steady frame such as an
aircraft create adequate pressures and temperatures to produce an explosive
vapour - or is turbine fuel significantly more volitile than kerosene?
--------[email: br...@faxmail.co.nz DON'T USE REPLY!]----------
Daily news about the internet: http://www.aardvark.co.nz
NZ's premier web-newspaper : http://www.7am.co.nz
Emails sent to the addresses in my header will be ignored
Stephen Berlinsky
Klaus P Kraemer wrote:
>
> In <58rorh$k...@sleet.snowhill.com> ja...@snowhill.com (Jim Wright)
> writes:
>
> pieces,
> >quite an imagination there.
>
> I'm getting in pretty late on this thread and haven't followed every
> post, so forgive me if I'm duplicating this.
>
> Whether or not, during an accident while hot-refueling, the helicopter
> will blow itself into pieces depends on:
>
> 1) Is this Hollywood, and are we watching a movie?
> 2) Are we using Jet-A?
> 3) Are we using gasoline?
>
> The flames are reddest in case 1).
> Case 2) seems reasonably safe to me if proper precautions are taken
> (helicopter and fuel truck grounded, pilot at the controls, person with
> fire extinguisher in stand-by).
> Case 3): Gee, I think that would be beyond my threshold. Do you think a
> standard-size fire extinguisher, even if expertly handled, could
> control burning (gushing?) gasoline?
>
> Jet-A, which will extinguish a burning match someone might drop into
> it; nonetheless precautions are necessary. But would you hot-fuel a
> small helicopter with gasoline???
>
> Klaus.
Well, not exactly the standard hot refueling accident, but several years
ago an Apache was destroyed by a rather spectacular fire during hot
refueling (and I've been told by friends in the next spot that it looked
like something you'd see in a movie). A non-murphpy proof hose quick
disconnect coupling just behind the actual nozzle broke and sprayed a
significant amount of JP8 up and into the rotor system. I've talked to
the pilot and he said that nothing really prepares you to see fuel
pouring down and running over your canopy. The right engine was already
shut down (same engine that is on the refuel port side) and the pilots
initiated a rapid shutdown but not quite in time. The fire actually
appeared to start on the aft left side of the aircraft and rapidly
engulfed the helicopter and immediate area. Both crewmembers exited the
aircraft and survived (with fairly extensive burns). I don't recall
there being any info on the refueler being burned, so I assume he
staggered far enough away that he wasn't in the initial fireball.
The bottom line, I guess, is treat JP8/Jet A as if it was gasoline and
you'll live longer.
Steve
David Atkinson - Sun UK
Charles N. Ede wrote:
>
> Jim Wright wrote:
> >
> > In article <32A8A7...@mail.usinternet.com>,
> > Robert Beelman <rbee...@mail.usinternet.com> wrote:
> > >Ed Chernenkoff wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "M.D. Cobb" <co...@apci.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> The real danger of fueling a running helicopter is that a static charge
> > could build up and blow the helicopter into little tiny pieces.
> >
> > maybe, get someone hurt in the process, maybe. Explode, hardly.
> > After having survived a thousand or so hot refuelings, and witnessing
> > thousands more, I find it to be fairly safe.
> > The vast majority of hot refueling accidents occur as a result of equipment or
> > human error, and like most things, human error is the biggy. Grounding the
> > nozzle to the aircraft to eliminate static buildup due to fuel friction
> > inside the hose, and grounding the aircraft to disipate airframe static via
> > separate grounding cables eliminates static as a cause.
> > A fire usually requires a fairly large amount (multiple gallons) to be
> > somewhere other than where it's supposed to be - the fuel cell.
> >
> > Jim Wright
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> gassoline in a tank, filled with the fumes is a very explosive content.
> Think of a spark caused by the static electricity of any of several
> possible combination including static cahrge of the rotor, and explosion
> is a rare but distinct possibility.
>
>
> A prudent pilot has a career of avoiding all the remote possibilities
> that can create "accidents."
>
> Charles Ede
The danger of explosion is very real indeed. I missed the beginning of
this thread so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone has already
posted.
When I was a trainee pilot in the RAF back in the '70s, part of our
training was about the dangers of refueling an un-earthed (un-grounded
for my North American friends) aircraft. As part of the message that
this was not such a bright idea, we were shown film of a US military
UH-I Iroquois (is that the correct spelling?) being refueled without an
earth, and believe me, that machine blew up in a big way!
For the sake of the poor erk doing the refueling, I hope that the
incident was staged for training purposes, but the message is real -
aircraft can make a very big bang indeed if you don't earth them before
refueling.
Rgds - David.
Orin Durey
>I don't think I would hot re-fuel a gasoline powered helicopter,
>but then again you don't have start cycles to count in a piston
>machine as in a turbine.
>
>Regards,
>FGK
Oh, yeah, that reminds me... In the '80's when I was fighting
forest fires in Saskatchewan, the engineer used to fire up a
gasoline-powered fuel pump and *hose down* the great W-P 1840(?)
radial with 100/130 to wash the oil off of it. I was napping in
the shade and must have looked a sight, crawling away from the
scene on my back as fast as I could go on my elbows and heels, heh,
heh...
>The bottom line, I guess, is treat JP8/Jet A as if it was gasoline
>and you'll live longer.
>
>Steve
Actually, Jet-B *is* about 10%(?) naptha (gasoline). We had
university students burning garbage in an exploration camp and I
watched one of them blow himself up. Actually he had just shaken
the last drops of Jet-B out of a Jerry can onto a garbage fire, and
the fire ran up the drop trail into the plastic can and exploded in
his hands. It flipped him into the air and onto his back, where he
lay still for half a minute as we went running to revive him. He
got up and staggered around, none the worse for wear except minus
his eyebrows and moustache.
Eddie Haynes-Smart
On 15/12/96 01:12AM, in message <58vc8f$5...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>, Klaus
P Kraemer <kla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> snip
> I have been around helicopters from Jet Ranger to S-58T; they burn
> Jet-A, which will extinguish a burning match someone might drop into
> it; nonetheless precautions are necessary. But would you hot-fuel a
> small helicopter with gasoline???
>
> Klaus.
Sorry, but have come in late to this thread. For interest's sake I (and others
a lot more!) have used Schweitzer 300's (and Robinson R22's) for game catching
operations where we only take on 30 - 45 mins fuel (to save weight) and refuel
from drums in the field when the warning light comes on and we always hot
refuel to save time. We've had stacks of accidents (doing this kind of work) of
all descriptions (the annual rate is something like 20% although this is open
to correction!) but I've never heard of a hot refueling accident.
--
Eddie Haynes-Smart, Cape Town, South Africa
EGELSONE
In response to the Apache refuel fire mentioned in previous posts.
There have been a number of fires in the military during "HOT" refuel. It
is inherently not the best way to deal with refueling a helicopter. It
must be noted that "HOT" refuel is not the normal method of day to day
refuel. We practice the hot methods in a tactical or simulated tactical
environment. It is done for the purposesd of speeding up the process. We
set up a line of refuel/rearm stations in what is refered to as a FARRP
(Forward Area Refuel and Rearm Point). It is intended that we pass a
group of aircraft through this point to refuel, rearm and maintain them in
a rapid manner. The aircraft then will return to the battle and continue
the fight. Remember that we use this method for warfighting and to
simulate warfighting. EVERY precaution is taken to reduce the possibility
for an accident. We shut down the engine on the side (right, starboard,
number 2) of the helicopter, we ground the airframe and bond it to the
nozzle. We have a man standing by the refuel equipment with a kill switch
and don't pressurize the hose until the refueler signals. We have a man
with firefighting equipment standing by. All of the equipment is
inspected by an officer PRIOR to being allowed to refuel. The crews are
trained and retrained and given safety classes and shown pictures of
accidents and videos of crewmembers who have survived accidents and no
stone is left unturned in the quest for safety. The crewmembers in the
aircraft are wearing NOMEX flight equipment, gloves helmets, visors down,
Ray Bans on. You name it they are working the safety side very hard.
STILL..................
Things happen, as mentioned in a prior post an AH-64 burned to the ground
due to a fire. This has happened more than once, the most recent was at
Fort Hood in 1995. The crew escaped but were injured. What happens is
that the Army designed the fuel delivery system to be "CLOSED CIRCUIT",
that is to say that fuel is delivered without exposure to the air. A
coupling is mated to the aircraft and fuel is pumped in. If, in a war
time scenario the crew needs to leave in a giant hurry, it is designed to
break away from the aircraft and allow you to scoot. During the
breakaway, the coupling should shut off the supply of fuel. What has
happened in some instances, is that the couple has been installed
incorrectly or been faulty and has broken away and spurted fuel (very high
delivery rates BTW) essentially soaking the aircraft. This firehose spray
of jet fuel (it does not matter JP4, JP5, JP8 Jet A, B) then get to an
ignition source and it is off to the races. Even though the fuel is a
safe fuel, you can't hose off a running Apache with the stuff and not
expect to get egnition. Usually the fuel is ingested into the running
engine (APU or left side, NO 1) and the fire starts.
I have been involved in hot rfueling of many types of helicopters for
about 19 years (1977). I have never been involved in an incident that
involved a spill or fire. This is true for almost everyone involved in
the business. I have hot refuel using gravity nozzles more than CCR or
single point adapters. It is not hard to do, it just takes some awareness
of the situation and one MUST think SAFETY. I used to fly offfshore where
we had to hot refuel alone on an oil platform. We would friction the
controls and get out with the aircraft running and get fuel. This was
probably the worst possible way to do it. It is still being done that way
today. If the pilot has a choice, he shuts down, has a safety man with
fire fighting equipment and does it "right". That fact remains that one
must deal with the situation as he must. In the military environment, the
safety measures are mandated and complied with, in the civilian world
common sense must prevail. The bottom line is that there will continue to
be accidents and we must do all we can to prevent them and minimize or
exposure to the risk.
Ed
Matt Dossey
I have heard of numerous refuel accidents. Most involve pressure
refueling, because when a refueler is pumping fuel at 50 to 300+ GPM and
the hose breaks or a valve breaks, fuel is sprayed on everything nearby.
Apaches and Blackhawks are particularly vulnerable because their engines
are so close to the refuel station.
Refueling a smaller helicopter through gravity-fed fuel delivery does
not pose this threat to nearly as great of an extent.
Matt Dossey
Mike Rehbein
In article <N.122096....@196-7-74-52.iafrica.com>, tu...@iafrica.com
(Eddie Haynes-Smart) wrote:
> On 15/12/96 01:12AM, in message <58vc8f$5...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
Klaus
> P Kraemer <kla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
> > I have been around helicopters from Jet Ranger to S-58T; they burn
> > Jet-A, which will extinguish a burning match someone might drop into
> > it; nonetheless precautions are necessary. But would you hot-fuel a
> > small helicopter with gasoline???
> >
> > Klaus.
>
>
> Sorry, but have come in late to this thread. For interest's sake I (and
others
> a lot more!) have used Schweitzer 300's (and Robinson R22's) for game
catching
> operations where we only take on 30 - 45 mins fuel (to save weight) and
refuel
> from drums in the field when the warning light comes on and we always hot
> refuel to save time. We've had stacks of accidents (doing this kind of
work) of
> all descriptions (the annual rate is something like 20% although this is open
> to correction!) but I've never heard of a hot refueling accident.
> --
> Eddie Haynes-Smart, Cape Town, South Africa
I should add that as a mixer/loader for an ag operation, I would hot
refuel a gasoline propelled Hiller about every 8 minutes. Though I never
thought of this as risky since I used a single point refueling nozzle.
Hm.... now where did the fuel tank vent? I can't remember. It had to
vent somewhere as I added fuel. Did this in WI. And the only ground was
the chopper skids on the deck of the truck and the fuel hose itself
(internal mesh.) The Hiller would use the deck on the truck as the LZ.
The deck covered the water and chem tanks and the roof of the truck cab.
twood
Snip
>> Sorry, but have come in late to this thread. For interest's sake I (and others
>> a lot more!) have used Schweitzer 300's (and Robinson R22's) for game catching
>> operations where we only take on 30 - 45 mins fuel (to save weight) and refuel
>> from drums in the field when the warning light comes on and we always hot
>> refuel to save time. We've had stacks of accidents (doing this kind of work) of
>> all descriptions (the annual rate is something like 20% although this is open
>> to correction!) but I've never heard of a hot refueling accident.
>> --
>> Eddie Haynes-Smart, Cape Town, South Africa
>
Eddie,
Did you say that 20% of your flights result in accidents? I can't
imagine anyone continuing an operation with this kind of record. In the
US Navy we track accidents in terms of number per 100,000 flight hours.
That number better be in the very low single digits! I certainly must
have misunderstood your post.
Terray
EGELSONE
EARLIER tERRAY WROTE:
> Did you say that 20% of your flights result in accidents? I can't
>imagine anyone continuing an operation with this kind of record. In the
>US Navy we track accidents in terms of number per 100,000 flight hours.
>That number better be in the very low single digits! I certainly must
>have misunderstood your post.
>Terray
What is the current accident rate for the Navy? It must be above the Army
and Air Force.
Ed
Rich Ahrens
twood (woo...@aloha.com) spilled onto his/her news spool:
: >> refuel to save time. We've had stacks of accidents (doing this kind of work) of
: >> all descriptions (the annual rate is something like 20% although this is open
: >> to correction!) but I've never heard of a hot refueling accident.
Only if each aircraft is only operated once a year. I'd read his text as
meaning each aircraft has a one in five chance of an accident every
year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |---------------------------------------------|
| "Nobody talks more of free enterprise and competition and of the |
| best man winning than the man who inherited his father's store |
| or farm." - C. Wright Mills |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Klaus P Kraemer
>: Did you say that 20% of your flights result in accidents?
>
>Only if each aircraft is only operated once a year. I'd read his text
as
>meaning each aircraft has a one in five chance of an accident every
>year.
Doesn't change the ratio a bit.
Eddie Haynes-Smart
On 22/12/96 09:46PM, in message <59k379$gal$1...@opihi.aloha.com>, twood
<woo...@aloha.com> wrote:
> Snip
>
> Eddie,
> Did you say that 20% of your flights result in accidents? I can't
> imagine anyone continuing an operation with this kind of record. In the
> US Navy we track accidents in terms of number per 100,000 flight hours.
> That number better be in the very low single digits! I certainly must
> have misunderstood your post.
>
> Terray
>
Terray
What I meant was that one in five of the choppers doing game catching would
have an accident each year (season really because it's mostly done from late
autumn through winter into early spring). It was meant to be a comparison when
talking about hot refueling. I also did say in my post that that statistic was
open to correction. Although the official figures wouldn't help much because we
don't always report the accidents. As an example I've had wire strikes (thin
copper telephone wires) and then we'd epoxy the blades and recover with blade
tape and carry on flying.
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Eddie Haynes-Smart
COSMO12365
>What is the current accident rate for the Navy? It must be above the
Army
and Air Force. <
I've never heard of any mishaps while hot refueling, so I will answer this
in the general sense.
The Navy's mishap rate is generally slightly higher than that of the other
two branches mentioned. The reason for this is that the Navy conducts
flight ops form ships at sea vice strictly on land. You will find no more
demanding environment than night time flight operations at sea. If you
look at the mishap rates and subtract the mishaps that occur at sea you
will find that the mishap rates of all three branches is about the same.
Typical annual mishap rates that I have seen in the Navy are between 1.0
and 3.0 per 100,000 flight hours.
Eric Scheie
EGELSONE
>The Navy's mishap rate is generally slightly higher than that of the
other
>two branches mentioned. The reason for this is that the Navy conducts
>flight ops form ships at sea vice strictly on land. You will find no more
>demanding environment than night time flight operations at sea. If you
>look at the mishap rates and subtract the mishaps that occur at sea you
>will find that the mishap rates of all three branches is about the same.
>Typical annual mishap rates that I have seen in the Navy are between 1.0
>and 3.0 per 100,000 flight hours.
The Army is quite excited that for the past two years they have held the
accident rate below 1 per 100,000. This past year I believe 0.63 (or
something close). This is due to extreme emphasis on safety (air and
groud). The Army has adopted a policy that is almost extreme in it's
nature but seems to be working. The nature of all tactical military
flying is hazardous. The army is in the dirt. The Navy is over the ocean
and lands on a can, The Air Force, well let's just say they are hazardous
to the bad guys and the good guys (could not resist, I like Blackhawks).
Ed
Eric Scheie
Ken Leander
EGELSONE wrote:
> The Army is quite excited that for the past two years they have held
> the accident rate below 1 per 100,000.
Impressive. Any breakdown on what kind of accidents?
KL
twood
egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>What is the current accident rate for the Navy? It must be above the Army
>and Air Force.
>
Ed,
I don't have the exact numbers. I'll try to find them if someone
else doesn't provide them. As you probaly know, comparing the different
services' accident rates is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison due
to different missions and operating environments.
Terray
twood
Eddie,
At either rate it sure sounds like some exciting(risky?) flying.
Good luck and try to stay in the 80%.
Terray
Klaus P Kraemer
In <N.122396....@196-7-74-52.iafrica.com> tu...@iafrica.com (Eddie
Haynes-Smart) writes:
>
>On 22/12/96 09:46PM, in message <59k379$gal$1...@opihi.aloha.com>, twood
><woo...@aloha.com> wrote:
>
>> Snip
>>
>> Eddie,
>> Did you say that 20% of your flights result in accidents?
>What I meant was that one in five of the choppers doing game catching
would
> As an example I've had wire strikes (thin copper telephone wires) and
>then we'd epoxy the blades and recover with blade tape and carry on
>flying.
Why am I not surprised of your "20 percent accident rate"?
Klaus.
Eddie Haynes-Smart
On 25/12/96 04:09AM, in message <59q2ck$8...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, Klaus P
Kraemer <kla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> snip
> > As an example I've had wire strikes (thin copper telephone wires) and
> >then we'd epoxy the blades and recover with blade tape and carry on
> >flying.
>
> Why am I not surprised of your "20 percent accident rate"?
>
> Klaus.
Assuming you're having a mild crack at the game-catching industry's helo ops
methods may I say that I've never experienced or heard of blade problems
causing accidents. We do try and make value judgements when it comes to fixing
nicks in blades etc.
Virtually the only reasons for the high accident rate is low, slow (herding
wild animals often below the tree line) downwind (which is the way they move
when pressurised) and very hot conditions (although we try to minimise this by
early morning and late afternoon sorties) using the cheapest, smallest (thus
often marginally underpowered for the job) helos (mostly H300's and R22's - how
we'd love to be game-catching with H500's).
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Mike Rehbein
> > Why am I not surprised of your "20 percent accident rate"?
> >
> > Klaus.
>
> Assuming you're having a mild crack at the game-catching industry's helo ops
> methods may I say that I've never experienced or heard of blade problems
> causing accidents. We do try and make value judgements when it comes to
fixing
> nicks in blades etc.
> Virtually the only reasons for the high accident rate is low, slow (herding
> wild animals often below the tree line) downwind (which is the way they move
> when pressurised) and very hot conditions (although we try to minimise
this by
> early morning and late afternoon sorties) using the cheapest, smallest (thus
> often marginally underpowered for the job) helos (mostly H300's and
R22's - how
> we'd love to be game-catching with H500's).
>
> --
> Eddie Haynes-Smart, Cape Town, South Africa
I only had to move 6 cattle out of tall corn 3 times one hot afternoon.
I don't envy your work :) Hot, slow, I was wringing wet in no time. Talk
about being on the "edge of the ledge" :)
Heard (or should that read "herd" :) there is a helicopter service in
Australia that hires out to do cattle round ups. And they now have a
fleet of R-22s. I think they used to use H-300's. The accident rate is
higher than those operators who get to fly from airport to airport :)
Klaus P Kraemer
In <atahover-251...@dialup-218.minn.net> atah...@minn.net
(Mike Rehbein) writes:
>> Virtually the only reasons for the high accident rate is low, slow
(herding
>> wild animals often below the tree line) downwind (which is the way
>> they move when pressurised)
>> Eddie Haynes-Smart, Cape Town, South Africa
>
> I only had to move 6 cattle out of tall corn 3 times one hot
afternoon.
>I don't envy your work :) Hot, slow, I was wringing wet in no time.
> Mike
I understand... especially when the animals are "pressurised" <g>
Klaus.
Mike Rehbein
> I understand... especially when the animals are "pressurised" <g>
>
> Klaus.
:) :)
Not being from the farm, I was first coached on not making them move
at more than a walk.
Well, as I said earlier, had to make 3 drives on the same 6. Once at
the gate, the leader would bolt. He would do this by rearing up and
pivoting on the hind legs. Now facing the his followers he would plunge
or lunge forward. Man would they scatter. Jumping over one man on a 3
wheeler, who ducked but he need not have :) They would "escape" back into
the corn field.
Well, trying to outsmart the bull, I figured on beating him to the
corn field if he bolted on the second attempt at the gate.
After driving them up to the crowd of hands who would attempt to get
the group past the gate, I headed slowly back towards the corn. This time
when he bolted, I beat him to the corn. But it was a stand-off. There I
was between him and the corn. He could have run around but instead must
have liked this stand-off. Wish I had it on film. He refused to move. I
crept forward. I wondered just how close I would have to get. Or if he
would refuse to move. Not much I could really do in that case. I put the
skids at about neck height and crept closer yet. At last as the edge of
the rotor disk closed to the area above his head, he decided to give in.
But not all at once. He did turn but very slowly. Side stepping with
just the front feet, pivoting around the back legs. One step at a time as
if to show me he really was not impressed with the downwash. I stayed
put, he gradually walked back up the meadow. I gathered the rest and made
another push to the gate. After the failed 3rd attempt, I saw why not to
make them move at a faster pace. The rapid pace of the bolting had been a
little much for the bull. Druel hung from his mouth to the ground. :)
Enough for one afternoon, I was shot and evidently, so was my adversary :)
Sorry to say, the farmer decided to abandon all hope of resolving the
corn theives. (Well, they actually were said to be knocking down corn by
the acre.) You see, they were his cattle, but the corn was his
neighbor's. In the interest of good relations, they agreed to quickly
resolve the situation. They shot the bull the following day.
Pollen - takes a lot of soap to remove it from blades, etc. :)
Eddie Haynes-Smart
To Klaus P Kraemer - sorry, didn't understand your last post, so
can't respond.
Mike, I have seen a TV documentary on the cattle herding ops in
Australia. They were still using H300's then. Those guys are great
bush pilots. That kind of flying is sure hard on machines. For
instance, we often have to clear air filters two/three times a day
(as power wanes)and have to grease the rotor heads daily (of course,
don't have this problem on the Robbies, but between the two still
much prefer the H300 for this kind of work).
BTW, for anyone who may be interested (using some extremely informal
calcs!) I'd put the game-catching accident rate at 40 - 50 per
100,000 flying hours.
--
Mike Rehbein
In article <N.122896....@196-7-74-52.iafrica.com>, tu...@iafrica.com
(Eddie Haynes-Smart) wrote:
> Mike, I have seen a TV documentary on the cattle herding ops in
> Australia. They were still using H300's then. Those guys are great
> bush pilots. That kind of flying is sure hard on machines. For
> instance, we often have to clear air filters two/three times a day
> (as power wanes)and have to grease the rotor heads daily (of course,
> don't have this problem on the Robbies, but between the two still
> much prefer the H300 for this kind of work).
>
> --
> Eddie Haynes-Smart, Cape Town, South Africa
HI Eddie!
I have yet to try the R-22. But I sure do love the H-300. So
responsive, like a sports car, eh? Short boom, big fan (tail rotor :) and
so not bothered much by cross winds. And of course, George. A nick name
for the throttle governor :)
Mike
KMA
Some Time ago, on 24 Dec 1996 01:33:41 GMT or something, twood
<woo...@aloha.com> wrote some stuff like:
I could get that information, but it would take a day. I want to point
out that until Operation Joint Endeavor (Operation Stay Forever)
started. US Army aviation had been enjoying some of the most accident
free years for a while.
V.
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Mike Rehbein <atah...@minn.net> wrote:
snip
> And of course, George. A nick name
> for the throttle governor :)
> snip
Hi Mike,
Our older H300's and R22's don't have governors and on the newer ones we
disable it. Catching game we've found the slight lag in reaction allows the
revs to drop too far when manouevring quickly. We actually start powering up
marginally before the revs are needed. While doing other flying we don't want
to become used to the governor - life could become just a little too
interesting, too quickly :-)
Eddie Haynes-Smart
Mike Rehbein <atah...@minn.net> wrote:
> snip
> But I sure do love the H-300. So
> responsive, like a sports car, eh? Short boom, big fan (tail rotor :) and
> so not bothered much by cross winds. And of course, George. A nick name
> for the throttle governor :)
> snip
Hi Mike,
Our older H300's & R22's don't have governors and on the newer ones we disable
it. Catching game we've found the slight lag in reaction allows the revs to
drop too far when manouevring quickly. We try to manually start powering up
marginally before the revs are needed. We don't want to become too used to the
governor when doing other flying - getting it wrong later at tree top height
would mean life becoming just a little too interesting, too quickly :-)
twood
twood <woo...@aloha.com> wrote:
>egel...@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:
>
>>What is the current accident rate for the Navy? It must be above the Army
>>and Air Force.
>>
>>Ed
>
>Ed,
> I don't have the exact numbers. I'll try to find them if someone
>else doesn't provide them. As you probaly know, comparing the different
>services' accident rates is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison due
>to different missions and operating environments.
>
>Terray
>
>
>
Just read the numbers as 2.33 for Navy and Marines. Army was well
less than 1 and Air Force was a little more than 1 per 100,000 hours.
Terray