Safety of homebuild Helicopters

[JohnO]

Hi,

Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
consider accidents where there was a design fault

I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.

It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.

Cheers,
JohnO

[Gem]

JohnO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
> and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> consider accidents where there was a design fault
>
> I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
> in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
>
> It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
> such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
> the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
>
> Cheers,
> JohnO

I believe Mr. Schramm suffered a heart attack, and died in the air.

[JohnO]

Gem wrote:
> JohnO wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> > demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
> > and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> > accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> > consider accidents where there was a design fault
> >
> > I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
> > in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
> >
> > It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
> > such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
> > the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > JohnO
>
> I believe Mr. Schramm suffered a heart attack, and died in the air.

Oh. There's worse ways to go I guess...

[Tom Frey]

"JohnO" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
>
> Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
> and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> consider accidents where there was a design fault
>
> I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
> in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
>
> It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
> such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
> the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
>
> Cheers,
> JohnO
>

Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

Tom

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Note: Discussions with Blake Estes of Eagle R&D, the home of the Helicycle,
there were autopsies that disproved the heart attack rumor for B.J. The
most probable cause was fuel contamination causing engine stoppage while at
a low altitude.
BTW after reviewing a bunch of accidents involving experimental helicopters,
there are darned few that can be attributable to only a design flaw. Most
if not all were avoidable by proper pre-flight, proper inspection, or proper
pilotage. Obviously some of the maintenance issues involved in crashes
could have been avoided by a different, better, design, but that could be
said for a lot of the Bell 47 accidents and they have been successfully
operated for years.

--

Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"JohnO" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Gem wrote:
> > JohnO wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> > > demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of
certified
> > > and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> > > accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> > > consider accidents where there was a design fault
> > >
> > > I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit
helos,
> > > in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
> > >
> > > It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter
world
> > > such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
> > > the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > JohnO
> >
> > I believe Mr. Schramm suffered a heart attack, and died in the air.
>
> Oh. There's worse ways to go I guess...
>

[Don W]

JohnO wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
> and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> consider accidents where there was a design fault

You can search the NTSB accident records by make
of aircraft. You'll have to read the summaries
yourself to exclude pilot error.

Actually, for the Rotorway with the turbine
conversion there may not be very many entries
since they haven't been available for that long,
and there are not that many flying.

Good luck,

Don W.

[wavy]

JohnO wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
> and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> consider accidents where there was a design fault
>
> I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
> in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
>
> It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
> such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
> the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
>
> Cheers,
> JohnO

Just look up Mini 500 in the NTSB database.

I think that might dissuade you from at least one possibitlity....
=WaVy

[John_F]

There were about 500 mini 500's sold and about 100 to 150 flying.
There are at least 11 deaths as of three years ago that I know of
flying the mini 500. You calculate the odds.

Mr Fetters claims the design is fine however when a 60,000 hour
professional helicopter pilot dies in one I took notice. I have lost
three friends to this machine.
John

On 8 Dec 2006 20:09:29 -0800, "wavy" > wrote:

>JohnO wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
>> demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
>> and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
>> accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
>> consider accidents where there was a design fault
>>
>> I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
>> in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
>>
>> It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
>> such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
>> the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> JohnO
>
>Just look up Mini 500 in the NTSB database.
>
>I think that might dissuade you from at least one possibitlity....
>=WaVy

[Steve R]

"Dennis Fetters" > wrote in message
. net...
> John_F wrote:
>> There were about 500 mini 500's sold and about 100 to 150 flying.
>> There are at least 11 deaths as of three years ago that I know of
>> flying the mini 500. You calculate the odds.
>>
>> Mr Fetters claims the design is fine however when a 60,000 hour
>> professional helicopter pilot dies in one I took notice. I have lost
>> three friends to this machine.
>> John
>
>
> It's a real shame when people throw out comments like this without the
> proof to back it up. I'm not interested in debating with clowns like this,
> I'm just to busy, but for those of you that are interested in facts, here
> is a complete accident report concerning the Mini-500 below that speaks
> the story for it's self.
>

<significant stippage in the interest of brevety>

Too busy? You're obviously not too busy to bother to respond to posts like
this, which is something I've wondered why you "still" bother to do after
all this time?

The Mini 500, regardless of it's merits (good or bad) as an experimental
helicopter is history. As you pointed out, there is no factory support,
there are no parts availability except for what a resourceful builder/owner
can come up with on their own. The machine's reliability (or lack thereof)
and your companies support of it (or lack thereof) has been debated and
re-debated adnausium for what, 10 years now? Seems to me that it's time to
move on. All the minds that really care have been made up for a "long" time
now and neither side is going to change the others.

Take care, have a nice life, and give a rest, will ya?
(that applies to all of you, not just Mr. Fetters!)

Steve R.

[Dennis Fetters]

Steve R wrote:
> Seems to me that it's time to
> move on.

I couldn't agree more............ But, I'm not the one bringing it up. I
have the right to tell the truth when someone else puts out faults
information about the Mini-500 or myself, just as you do if the shoe was
on your foot.

Dennis Fetters

[JohnO]

Tom Frey wrote:
> "JohnO" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
> > demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of certified
> > and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
> > accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
> > consider accidents where there was a design fault
> >
> > I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit helos,
> > in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
> >
> > It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter world
> > such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
> > the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > JohnO
> >
>
> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>
> Tom

Hi Tom,

The link seems to be broken?

[Tom Frey]

Snip ----------

>> >
>>
>> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>>
>> Tom
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> The link seems to be broken?
>

Let's hope it's just down for modification or repair, because I can't get it
to work now either. I accessed it from their aviation page at
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm, and the top three search options
on that page are now yeilding the same error.

[JohnO]

Tom Frey wrote:
> Snip ----------
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
> >>
> >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
> >>
> >> Tom
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > The link seems to be broken?
> >
>
> Let's hope it's just down for modification or repair, because I can't get it
> to work now either. I accessed it from their aviation page at
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm, and the top three search options
> on that page are now yeilding the same error.

I guess their server crashed. The irony!

[JohnO]

JohnO wrote:
> Tom Frey wrote:
> > Snip ----------
> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
> > >>
> > >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
> > >>
> > >> Tom
> > >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > The link seems to be broken?
> > >
> >
> > Let's hope it's just down for modification or repair, because I can't get it
> > to work now either. I accessed it from their aviation page at
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm, and the top three search options
> > on that page are now yeilding the same error.
>
> I guess their server crashed. The irony!

It's back online!

[Tom Frey]

"JohnO" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> JohnO wrote:
>> Tom Frey wrote:
>> > Snip ----------
>> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
>> > >>
>> > >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
>> > >>
>> > >> Tom
>> > >
>> > > Hi Tom,
>> > >
>> > > The link seems to be broken?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Let's hope it's just down for modification or repair, because I can't
>> > get it
>> > to work now either. I accessed it from their aviation page at
>> > http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm, and the top three search
>> > options
>> > on that page are now yeilding the same error.
>>
>> I guess their server crashed. The irony!
>
> It's back online!
>

Cool! Now we can search their records for the cause of their server crash!

[JohnO]

Tom Frey wrote:
> "JohnO" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > JohnO wrote:
> >> Tom Frey wrote:
> >> > Snip ----------
> >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Tom
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Tom,
> >> > >
> >> > > The link seems to be broken?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Let's hope it's just down for modification or repair, because I can't
> >> > get it
> >> > to work now either. I accessed it from their aviation page at
> >> > http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm, and the top three search
> >> > options
> >> > on that page are now yeilding the same error.
> >>
> >> I guess their server crashed. The irony!
> >
> > It's back online!
> >
>
> Cool! Now we can search their records for the cause of their server crash!

Dollars to donuts it was a maintenance or operator error, unless the
site is hosted on Microsoft IIS in which case I'd suspect design
failure.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

JohnO This doesn't directly address your question but does relate. We know
a guy who just finished a year of MedEvac flying in a 206L and had previous
experience flying and instructin in homebuilt helicopters. He has returned
to flying the homebuilt variety feeling that it is safer. This is one man's
experience.
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"JohnO" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Tom Frey wrote:
> > "JohnO" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > JohnO wrote:
> > >> Tom Frey wrote:
> > >> > Snip ----------
> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Do you mean something other than the NTSB records?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Tom
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi Tom,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The link seems to be broken?
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's hope it's just down for modification or repair, because I
can't
> > >> > get it
> > >> > to work now either. I accessed it from their aviation page at
> > >> > http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm, and the top three search
> > >> > options
> > >> > on that page are now yeilding the same error.
> > >>
> > >> I guess their server crashed. The irony!
> > >
> > > It's back online!
> > >
> >
> > Cool! Now we can search their records for the cause of their server
crash!
>
> Dollars to donuts it was a maintenance or operator error, unless the
> site is hosted on Microsoft IIS in which case I'd suspect design
> failure.
>

[JohnO]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> JohnO This doesn't directly address your question but does relate. We know
> a guy who just finished a year of MedEvac flying in a 206L and had previous
> experience flying and instructin in homebuilt helicopters. He has returned
> to flying the homebuilt variety feeling that it is safer. This is one man's
> experience.

Why did he feel it was safer? Was it because he did his own maintenance?

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

JohnO: I think it was an exposure kind of thing. When he took a look at
engine reliabilty in turbines compared to his experience with experimental
piston engines and coupled that with being able to pick your weather days
flying experimentals vs take-it-as it comes as well as night flights over
really nasty terrain and having a strong need to get there because of life
saving situations; the flying would, I think, get a lot more hazardous than
just flying an experimental helo. Hell, I really didn't like the night
cross country I had to do for my helo add-on and that was good weather over
the LA basin. Great horizon reference available. I can't imagine flying at
night, into unknown weather, over whatever with trees, power lines etc. I
would hear every bearing in the engine and transmission just hollering.

--
Stuart Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com


"JohnO" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> > JohnO This doesn't directly address your question but does relate. We
know
> > a guy who just finished a year of MedEvac flying in a 206L and had
previous
> > experience flying and instructin in homebuilt helicopters. He has
returned
> > to flying the homebuilt variety feeling that it is safer. This is one
man's
> > experience.
>
> Why did he feel it was safer? Was it because he did his own maintenance?
>

[boB[_2_]]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> JohnO: I think it was an exposure kind of thing. When he took a look at
> engine reliabilty in turbines compared to his experience with experimental
> piston engines and coupled that with being able to pick your weather days
> flying experimentals vs take-it-as it comes as well as night flights over
> really nasty terrain and having a strong need to get there because of life
> saving situations; the flying would, I think, get a lot more hazardous than
> just flying an experimental helo. Hell, I really didn't like the night
> cross country I had to do for my helo add-on and that was good weather over
> the LA basin. Great horizon reference available. I can't imagine flying at
> night, into unknown weather, over whatever with trees, power lines etc. I
> would hear every bearing in the engine and transmission just hollering.
>


I can imagine the urgency of a medivac that's bad enough to require a
helicopter and with all the things you stated above would strain even
the best pilot. One mistake, well, there's no room for 1 mistake.
Unless he was flying with NVG's I would say he's as brave as they come.

--

boB
copter.six

[JohnO]

boB wrote:
> Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> > JohnO: I think it was an exposure kind of thing. When he took a look at
> > engine reliabilty in turbines compared to his experience with experimental
> > piston engines and coupled that with being able to pick your weather days
> > flying experimentals vs take-it-as it comes as well as night flights over
> > really nasty terrain and having a strong need to get there because of life
> > saving situations; the flying would, I think, get a lot more hazardous than
> > just flying an experimental helo. Hell, I really didn't like the night
> > cross country I had to do for my helo add-on and that was good weather over
> > the LA basin. Great horizon reference available. I can't imagine flying at
> > night, into unknown weather, over whatever with trees, power lines etc. I
> > would hear every bearing in the engine and transmission just hollering.
> >
>
>
> I can imagine the urgency of a medivac that's bad enough to require a
> helicopter and with all the things you stated above would strain even
> the best pilot. One mistake, well, there's no room for 1 mistake.
> Unless he was flying with NVG's I would say he's as brave as they come.
>
> --
>
> boB
> copter.six

When you talk medivac does that mean air amblance, rescue or both? Down
here air ambulance generally means no winching stretchers etc so it's
relatively tame. The rescue guys do the crazy stuff such as winching
stretchers off ships and cliffs and to me that's the scary stuff - when
the weather is bad. On the other hand when the weather is good they
have the advantage of auto hovering on auto pilot which would make life
somewhat more comfortable than the average R22 pilot!

[boB[_2_]]

JohnO wrote:

>>
>> I can imagine the urgency of a medivac that's bad enough to require a
>> helicopter and with all the things you stated above would strain even
>> the best pilot. One mistake, well, there's no room for 1 mistake.
>> Unless he was flying with NVG's I would say he's as brave as they come.
>>

>
> When you talk medivac does that mean air amblance, rescue or both? Down
> here air ambulance generally means no winching stretchers etc so it's
> relatively tame. The rescue guys do the crazy stuff such as winching
> stretchers off ships and cliffs and to me that's the scary stuff - when
> the weather is bad. On the other hand when the weather is good they
> have the advantage of auto hovering on auto pilot which would make life
> somewhat more comfortable than the average R22 pilot!
>


I'm thinking Air Ambulance. I think Air Rescue requires a special kind
of person and I would hope I wouldn't be too scared to fly those
missions. I have been scared a few times. I flew "Stable Patient
Transfer" for 2 years in a UH-1 from Portsmouth Naval Hospital to Walter
Reed. That is pretty tame flying compared to the Emergency Air Ambulance
where they have to respond many times at night in weather minimums
considered VFR for helicopters. And for helicopters the cloud clearance
requirement is different in Class G airspace - Clear of clouds. The
visibility of 3 miles was for fixed wing only under the Army AR95-1.
Helicopters can fly with less than 3 but I can't find it in the FAR's yet.

But even with 3 miles visibility at night it is a scary situation since
you are continuously looking for those invisible power lines and finding
your way to the accident site and 3 miles vis isn't as good as it
sounds. Flying OH58D's out of Stuttgart International south to our
training area we were not allowed to use the NVG's until out of the
Stuttgart controlled airspace so many nights we had very low visibility
which with NVG's was plenty but without NVG's was quite a trip. NVG's
can see through a lot of haze and fog. It wasn't unusual in Germany to
flip the goggles up inbound to land and find ourselves IMC.

With GPS now I'm sure it's a lot safer but still a heart pounder.

Class G airspace is typically ( I believe ) where a good number of
medivacs are called into, day and night, since it's usually far from
medical facilities and an Ambulance would take too long.






----------------------------------------
From FAR's
(b) Class G Airspace. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of
this section, the following operations may be conducted in Class G
airspace below 1,200 feet above the surface:

(1) Helicopter. A helicopter may be operated clear of clouds if operated
at a speed that allows the pilot adequate opportunity to see any air
traffic or obstruction in time to avoid a collision.

--------------------------------------


Sec. 91.155 - Basic VFR weather minimums.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §91.157, no
person may operate an aircraft under VFR when the flight visibility is
less, or at a distance from clouds that is less, than that prescribed
for the corresponding altitude and class of airspace in the following
table:


Class G:
1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude).

Day, except as provided in 1 statute mile........ Clear of clouds.
§ 91.155(b).

Night, except as provided in

3 statute miles.......

§ 91.155(b).

500 feet below.
1,000 feet above.
2,000 feet horizontal.


================================================== ====

More than 1,200 feet above the
surface but less than 10,000
feet MSL

Day........................... 1 statute mile........ 500 feet below.
1,000 feet
above.
2,000 feet
horizontal.

Night......................... 3 statute miles....... 500 feet below.
1,000 feet
above.
2,000 feet
horizontal.

More than 1,200 feet above the 5 statute miles....... 1,000 feet
surface and at or above below.
10,000 feet MSL. 1,000 feet
above.
1 statute mile
horizontal.


--

boB
copter.six

[RPE]

Currious, 100 to 150 flying?.. What happened to the other 350?


"John_F" > wrote in message
...
> There were about 500 mini 500's sold and about 100 to 150 flying.
> There are at least 11 deaths as of three years ago that I know of
> flying the mini 500. You calculate the odds.
>
> Mr Fetters claims the design is fine however when a 60,000 hour
> professional helicopter pilot dies in one I took notice. I have lost
> three friends to this machine.
> John
>
> On 8 Dec 2006 20:09:29 -0800, "wavy" > wrote:
>
>>JohnO wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Can someone point me to any official accident statistics that would
>>> demonstrate the relative accident rates of various classes of
>>> certified
>>> and experimental helos? Specifically I would want to exclude any
>>> accidents that were pilot error or failure of maintenance. and only
>>> consider accidents where there was a design fault
>>>
>>> I'm interested to know how safe the design is on the various kit
>>> helos,
>>> in particular for Rotorway in the KISS turbine version.
>>>
>>> It concerns me that a lot of the luminaries of the kit helicopter
>>> world
>>> such as Schramm and Bedo have died in accidents, but I'm not sure if
>>> the reasons were faults in the aircraft or pilot error.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> JohnO
>>
>>Just look up Mini 500 in the NTSB database.
>>
>>I think that might dissuade you from at least one possibitlity....
>>=WaVy
>
>

[601XL Builder]

Lot's of kit aircraft get sold and never finished. When the kit company
goes out of business mid project the number of unfinished kits are even
higher.

RPE wrote:
> Currious, 100 to 150 flying?.. What happened to the other 350?
>
>
> "John_F" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There were about 500 mini 500's sold and about 100 to 150 flying.
>> There are at least 11 deaths as of three years ago that I know of
>> flying the mini 500. You calculate the odds.
>>

[Linc]

clear of clouds, 1 mile at night in Class G, unless the aircraft is
higher than 1200 feet AGL.

Especially with the new NVGs, I would personally choose to fly with the
NVGs down, even if I was told that I couldn't. As a tool at night, even
if you are just confirming what you see with the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball,
flying without NVGs, especially if you have them with you, is like
flying the helicopter with one hand tied behind your back. And the
aircraft is a lot better with the GPS than with the AHRS.

Linc

boB wrote:

<snip>

> considered VFR for helicopters. And for helicopters the cloud clearance
> requirement is different in Class G airspace - Clear of clouds. The
> visibility of 3 miles was for fixed wing only under the Army AR95-1.
> Helicopters can fly with less than 3 but I can't find it in the FAR's yet.
>
> But even with 3 miles visibility at night it is a scary situation since
> you are continuously looking for those invisible power lines and finding
> your way to the accident site and 3 miles vis isn't as good as it
> sounds. Flying OH58D's out of Stuttgart International south to our
> training area we were not allowed to use the NVG's until out of the
> Stuttgart controlled airspace so many nights we had very low visibility
> which with NVG's was plenty but without NVG's was quite a trip. NVG's
> can see through a lot of haze and fog. It wasn't unusual in Germany to
> flip the goggles up inbound to land and find ourselves IMC.
>
> With GPS now I'm sure it's a lot safer but still a heart pounder.

<snip>

> boB
> copter.six

[boB[_4_]]

"Linc" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> clear of clouds, 1 mile at night in Class G, unless the aircraft is
> higher than 1200 feet AGL.
>
> Especially with the new NVGs, I would personally choose to fly with the
> NVGs down, even if I was told that I couldn't. As a tool at night, even
> if you are just confirming what you see with the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball,
> flying without NVGs, especially if you have them with you, is like
> flying the helicopter with one hand tied behind your back. And the
> aircraft is a lot better with the GPS than with the AHRS.
>
> Linc
>


I usually don't mention my side-stepping rules but those times, inbound to
land, when I flipped up the NVG's and found myself IMC, the Goggles came
back down instantly.

boB

[Linc]

boB,

I would never bust on you for it, and anyone who would, "they should
hold their manhood cheap." I find it a prudent course of action and
like I said, if you have the tools to use, you handicap yourself by not
using them. My goal is to always live to fly another day.

Speaking of those rules, were they host-nation, USAREUR, or homegrown
within the unit?

Linc

boB wrote:
> "Linc" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > clear of clouds, 1 mile at night in Class G, unless the aircraft is
> > higher than 1200 feet AGL.
> >
> > Especially with the new NVGs, I would personally choose to fly with the
> > NVGs down, even if I was told that I couldn't. As a tool at night, even
> > if you are just confirming what you see with the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball,
> > flying without NVGs, especially if you have them with you, is like
> > flying the helicopter with one hand tied behind your back. And the
> > aircraft is a lot better with the GPS than with the AHRS.
> >
> > Linc
> >
>
>
> I usually don't mention my side-stepping rules but those times, inbound to
> land, when I flipped up the NVG's and found myself IMC, the Goggles came
> back down instantly.
>
> boB

[boB[_2_]]

Linc wrote:
> boB,
>
> I would never bust on you for it, and anyone who would, "they should
> hold their manhood cheap." I find it a prudent course of action and
> like I said, if you have the tools to use, you handicap yourself by not
> using them. My goal is to always live to fly another day.
>
> Speaking of those rules, were they host-nation, USAREUR, or homegrown
> within the unit?
>
> Linc


Hi Linc. My unit flew out of Stuttgart International. My company was a
tactical unit flying OH58D's within a General Support Battalion. If it
would have been an Army Airfield the rules can be changed to suit the
training but the German Government wasn't keen to allow something they
deemed unsafe so we had to abide by the rules of the host country. It
usually wasn't that bad, .... what am I saying, it was Germany, it
seemed it was always bad...... My unit was a part of 7th Corp which
deployed to Desert Shield/Storm in December 1990.

But then again, flying in Germany was a LOT less restrictive than flying
in the US. Helicopter flights within Germany were usually flown below
500 feet and when the threat was elevated were were required to fly
below 100 feet. You could land where-ever you wanted throughout the
countryside as long as you weren't landing beside a farmer on his
tractor. It sounds fun, and it was if you were in an area you knew. But
flying across new terrain was a constant effort to see and avoid wires.
It got stressful at times and you were almost always on the wrong side
of the dead man's curve. But the Bell helicopters came through fine and
could be depended on for getting you out of bad situations. (except for
the AH-1Q's and OH58A's, the underpowered hogs)

--

boB
copter.six


U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas
5NM West of Gray Army/Killeen Regional (KGRK)

[Linc]

boB,

Good stuff! We're underpowered again, thanks to all the armament and
the boxes to run it, but the engine is extremely reliable. I have never
had a serious engine issue (knock on wood) and I attribute it to the
maintenance crews who manage the aircraft I get to fly. A little credit
goes to Rolls Royce as well, who seem to take the whole engine failure
thing very seriously and work hard to keep a reliable product in the
system.

We still live in and beneath the avoid bubble of the height-velocity
curve. Some things never change, I guess.

My last questions are, "How would they know the difference, whether you
were coming in with the goggles or not?" Or were you flying GM-5s?
<shudders> I flew GM-5s once in AO school. It was a great night to fly
goggles but it was like flying on the very worst night with ANVIS.

Merry Christmas

Linc

boB wrote:
> Linc wrote:
> > boB,
> >
> > I would never bust on you for it, and anyone who would, "they should
> > hold their manhood cheap." I find it a prudent course of action and
> > like I said, if you have the tools to use, you handicap yourself by not
> > using them. My goal is to always live to fly another day.
> >
> > Speaking of those rules, were they host-nation, USAREUR, or homegrown
> > within the unit?
> >
> > Linc
>
>
> Hi Linc. My unit flew out of Stuttgart International. My company was a
> tactical unit flying OH58D's within a General Support Battalion. If it
> would have been an Army Airfield the rules can be changed to suit the
> training but the German Government wasn't keen to allow something they
> deemed unsafe so we had to abide by the rules of the host country. It
> usually wasn't that bad, .... what am I saying, it was Germany, it
> seemed it was always bad...... My unit was a part of 7th Corp which
> deployed to Desert Shield/Storm in December 1990.
>
> But then again, flying in Germany was a LOT less restrictive than flying
> in the US. Helicopter flights within Germany were usually flown below
> 500 feet and when the threat was elevated were were required to fly
> below 100 feet. You could land where-ever you wanted throughout the
> countryside as long as you weren't landing beside a farmer on his
> tractor. It sounds fun, and it was if you were in an area you knew. But
> flying across new terrain was a constant effort to see and avoid wires.
> It got stressful at times and you were almost always on the wrong side
> of the dead man's curve. But the Bell helicopters came through fine and
> could be depended on for getting you out of bad situations. (except for
> the AH-1Q's and OH58A's, the underpowered hogs)
>
> --
>
> boB
> copter.six
>
>
> U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
> Central Texas
> 5NM West of Gray Army/Killeen Regional (KGRK)

[boB[_4_]]

"Linc" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> boB,
>
> Good stuff! We're underpowered again, thanks to all the armament and
>
> My last questions are, "How would they know the difference, whether you
> were coming in with the goggles or not?" Or were you flying GM-5s?
> <shudders> I flew GM-5s once in AO school. It was a great night to fly
> goggles but it was like flying on the very worst night with ANVIS.
>
> Merry Christmas
>
> Linc

When I flew we had ANVS 6 NVG's. Pretty nice goggles but a 40 degree FOV
and 20-200 vision is bad no matter what. I haven't even seen any newer
versions.

boB

[boB[_4_]]

"Linc" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> boB,
>
> My last questions are, "How would they know the difference, whether you
> were coming in with the goggles or not?" Or were you flying GM-5s?


Sorry, forgot to answer. They have no way of knowing but you can't get too
near an International Airport with NVG's before the goggles shut down from
the light. It doesn't take much.

boB

[Linc]

I'm spoiled then, (v)1 Types 5 & 6 with new image intensifiers were
incredible. And now the whole thing is better with the (v)3. 25mm
eyepiece lenses make it easy to make sure you get that full 40 degrees.
We hear rumors that >40 degree goggles are in the making, but nothing
coming out yet.

With (v)3, I fly in and out of fully lit airfields and over urban
terrain with no problems. Our hot refuel has bright lights for the
fuelers to see with at night. Some guys have complained about how
bright they are for taxiing in. I don't think they know how good they
have it.

Linc

boB wrote:
> "Linc" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > boB,
> >
> > My last questions are, "How would they know the difference, whether you
> > were coming in with the goggles or not?" Or were you flying GM-5s?
>
>
> Sorry, forgot to answer. They have no way of knowing but you can't get too
> near an International Airport with NVG's before the goggles shut down from
> the light. It doesn't take much.
>
> boB