True Cat A Performance
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sasless and Xnr,
I really don't advocate a full Cat A capability, personally, but I also recognize that we are here to give you what you want to buy.
The S-92 has it because that's what the JAR Ops operating rules will require. It comes at a cost, of course.
I really don't advocate a full Cat A capability, personally, but I also recognize that we are here to give you what you want to buy.
The S-92 has it because that's what the JAR Ops operating rules will require. It comes at a cost, of course.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, I don't find blonde copilots to be any better at flying than brunettes or redheads. I do find that female copilots generally smell & look better than males, though. 
Personally, I'll take range & speed over Cat A every day. If the fuel gets used up before you finish the ILS, Cat A means nothing, & if you can't load on enough fuel to get to the destination, Cat A means nothing. I'll take range, speed, EGPWS, TCAS, etc and take my chances with OEI ops.
Personally, I'll take range & speed over Cat A every day. If the fuel gets used up before you finish the ILS, Cat A means nothing, & if you can't load on enough fuel to get to the destination, Cat A means nothing. I'll take range, speed, EGPWS, TCAS, etc and take my chances with OEI ops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NightPilot
Would you take your chances landing in a built up area on a pad that is restricted to Cat A performance helicopters knowing full well that your bird is not certified to land there.
Its all about legal liability.
Would you take your chances landing in a built up area on a pad that is restricted to Cat A performance helicopters knowing full well that your bird is not certified to land there.
Its all about legal liability.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just re-readthe thread, and Steve76 says it all.
What we want is improved safety, not necessarily redundant engines. Let's all try to remember that safety does not come from mere redundancy.
I would wage that were it possible to magically make all helicopters full Cat A twins, the accident rates would rise, since most accidents have nothing to do with engines quitting on their own, accidents usually depend on pilots running out of fuel, or into the ground, or some such thing. If we improve the Cat A performance, we make the helo have less range, and you will probably increase the acident rate, when the aircraft hits the ground/wire/trees with two big engines.
I advocate no hard rule on improving aircraft, except to work constantly to fix what goes wrong with the whole system, of which the airframe is actually a small part. Examples:
Fix the airway infrastructure and operating rules, so we have good helo IFR procedures and routes (No more CFIT). Fix the helo flying so we can control the thing at night and in cloud (No more brownout or mis-orientation accidents).
Can we think of other things to fix so that we actually raise safety?
What we want is improved safety, not necessarily redundant engines. Let's all try to remember that safety does not come from mere redundancy.
I would wage that were it possible to magically make all helicopters full Cat A twins, the accident rates would rise, since most accidents have nothing to do with engines quitting on their own, accidents usually depend on pilots running out of fuel, or into the ground, or some such thing. If we improve the Cat A performance, we make the helo have less range, and you will probably increase the acident rate, when the aircraft hits the ground/wire/trees with two big engines.
I advocate no hard rule on improving aircraft, except to work constantly to fix what goes wrong with the whole system, of which the airframe is actually a small part. Examples:
Fix the airway infrastructure and operating rules, so we have good helo IFR procedures and routes (No more CFIT). Fix the helo flying so we can control the thing at night and in cloud (No more brownout or mis-orientation accidents).
Can we think of other things to fix so that we actually raise safety?
Nick,
I would re-write FAR Part 91 so that it incorporates the exact same visual light reference for night flight that FAR Part 135 does for VFR Flight. (and then enforce that rule....)
As the rule is written now....and as is often ignored by commercial operators....allows for VFR/VMC flight without any requirement for surface light reference by which to control the aircraft visually thus generating "instrument" flight conditions for crews that may not be equipped or trained for IMC flight.
I would re-write FAR Part 91 so that it incorporates the exact same visual light reference for night flight that FAR Part 135 does for VFR Flight. (and then enforce that rule....)
As the rule is written now....and as is often ignored by commercial operators....allows for VFR/VMC flight without any requirement for surface light reference by which to control the aircraft visually thus generating "instrument" flight conditions for crews that may not be equipped or trained for IMC flight.
"Fix the helo flying"
Good comment from Nick.
Sure you can have full Cat A requirements but it is all very redundant if the operator at the time is well out of the parameters for the Cat A approach. I'm seeing that it is difficult enough at the moment for a new guy who flys 1 helipad approach every 3 days to get it right with sky blue, 20kts on the nose and only 600lbs in the aircraft.
Perhaps a little lateral thinking is required and those certified helipad should be decertified. Its amazing that so much beauracracy can be generated for the .00008hrs of flight time spent in the "danger" zone on approach or finals.
Anyway XNR me ol' china, I have adequately proven that you can land on of these things on the numbers without Cat A and only one engine.... Just set up for a zero speed auto each time and "bobs your aunty mate!"
And another thing. I know b@ggar all about JAR ops but the little I do appreciate leads me to the conclusion that I hope to never have to operate under those rules.
No offence to the lads in the old country; but JAR sounds a little anal retentive. North America and Australasian aviation is surviving well without all the hassle that would be incurred by adopting this system.
Nick: My input for safety.....EFIS with the radar, GPS etc all integrated and fed into that lovely little 6 inch screen. Without a doubt the best tool for situational IFR awareness and reduction of workload in the cockpit. Making GPS screens about twice the size would be a good idea as well.
Good comment from Nick.
Sure you can have full Cat A requirements but it is all very redundant if the operator at the time is well out of the parameters for the Cat A approach. I'm seeing that it is difficult enough at the moment for a new guy who flys 1 helipad approach every 3 days to get it right with sky blue, 20kts on the nose and only 600lbs in the aircraft.
Perhaps a little lateral thinking is required and those certified helipad should be decertified. Its amazing that so much beauracracy can be generated for the .00008hrs of flight time spent in the "danger" zone on approach or finals.
Anyway XNR me ol' china, I have adequately proven that you can land on of these things on the numbers without Cat A and only one engine.... Just set up for a zero speed auto each time and "bobs your aunty mate!"
And another thing. I know b@ggar all about JAR ops but the little I do appreciate leads me to the conclusion that I hope to never have to operate under those rules.
No offence to the lads in the old country; but JAR sounds a little anal retentive. North America and Australasian aviation is surviving well without all the hassle that would be incurred by adopting this system.
Nick: My input for safety.....EFIS with the radar, GPS etc all integrated and fed into that lovely little 6 inch screen. Without a doubt the best tool for situational IFR awareness and reduction of workload in the cockpit. Making GPS screens about twice the size would be a good idea as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve
I think you are missing the point. Transport Canada has restricted certain helipads in Canada to Cat A performance. The aircraft you fly is not certified to land there. If you land there you are illegal.
Flying your approach like you are doing a zero speed auto scares me and will end up increasing the controlled flight into terrain statistics. Even though an excellent pilot like yourself could put the aircraft on the spot from 500' with both donkeys gone I am sure that the average bloke can't. When you train with your fellow pilots how many guys can put the aircraft on the numbers zero speed OEI. We are trying to make this aircraft do something that it wasn't designed to do.
The point of this thread was to find out which "new generation" birds have this capability. Not that many by the sound of it.
Lets talk specifics. The S76A cannot land at these helipads legally, nor can a 222A, the S76C is only certified to land at these restricted helipads "day only".
Pilots and operators don't understand the effect of the restriction.
Shawn
I don't feel that the regulators understand the effect of the restriction also. How could they? The pilots that are supposed to be current on type don't understand.
As we all agree we would rather have such things as range, reliability, and payload in our Xmas stockings long before we ask for Cat A helipad performance.
Maybe the restriction should be by "type" depending on the reliability of the engines installed.
I think you are missing the point. Transport Canada has restricted certain helipads in Canada to Cat A performance. The aircraft you fly is not certified to land there. If you land there you are illegal.
Flying your approach like you are doing a zero speed auto scares me and will end up increasing the controlled flight into terrain statistics. Even though an excellent pilot like yourself could put the aircraft on the spot from 500' with both donkeys gone I am sure that the average bloke can't. When you train with your fellow pilots how many guys can put the aircraft on the numbers zero speed OEI. We are trying to make this aircraft do something that it wasn't designed to do.
The point of this thread was to find out which "new generation" birds have this capability. Not that many by the sound of it.
Lets talk specifics. The S76A cannot land at these helipads legally, nor can a 222A, the S76C is only certified to land at these restricted helipads "day only".
Pilots and operators don't understand the effect of the restriction.
Shawn
I don't feel that the regulators understand the effect of the restriction also. How could they? The pilots that are supposed to be current on type don't understand.
As we all agree we would rather have such things as range, reliability, and payload in our Xmas stockings long before we ask for Cat A helipad performance.
Maybe the restriction should be by "type" depending on the reliability of the engines installed.
Last edited by Xnr; 3rd Jan 2003 at 13:42.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
xnr:
It may come as a bit of a surprise, but there are a lot of helicopters out there flying that are Category A certified. The S-76A is one of them, because, unless I'm really wrong, the UK CAA certified it, albeit with a performance penalty.
I'm also pretty sure that the helipads in Canada had a 'let' for something like 'demonstrated engine out performance' - at least that's what I tried to get put in, as we had an interesting situation with the S-76A doing vertical takeoff profiles that were not permitted by the basic flight manua.
NickLappos, I might add, was extremely helpful in getting this situation remedied to the satisfaction of nearly all concerned. Long story.
Category A is not normally required in operations in North America, which is a bit of pity- the requirement does a lot to teach helicopter pilots about performance. This increase in knowledge drives up the safety levels, just by virtue of being there.
One of my friends at a large helicopter manufacturer said there was a different level of operation and safety between the operators of single engine helicopters and twin engine operators, and he couldn't pin it down to anything other than having to consider a lot more when operating the machines.
It may come as a bit of a surprise, but there are a lot of helicopters out there flying that are Category A certified. The S-76A is one of them, because, unless I'm really wrong, the UK CAA certified it, albeit with a performance penalty.
I'm also pretty sure that the helipads in Canada had a 'let' for something like 'demonstrated engine out performance' - at least that's what I tried to get put in, as we had an interesting situation with the S-76A doing vertical takeoff profiles that were not permitted by the basic flight manua.
NickLappos, I might add, was extremely helpful in getting this situation remedied to the satisfaction of nearly all concerned. Long story.
Category A is not normally required in operations in North America, which is a bit of pity- the requirement does a lot to teach helicopter pilots about performance. This increase in knowledge drives up the safety levels, just by virtue of being there.
One of my friends at a large helicopter manufacturer said there was a different level of operation and safety between the operators of single engine helicopters and twin engine operators, and he couldn't pin it down to anything other than having to consider a lot more when operating the machines.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XNR,
Does your operation mandate Cat A performance as per SOP's/ customer requirements/ air reg's/ etc....??
In fact, anyone out there, does your job mandate Cat A op's at all flight regimes????
D.K
Does your operation mandate Cat A performance as per SOP's/ customer requirements/ air reg's/ etc....??
In fact, anyone out there, does your job mandate Cat A op's at all flight regimes????
D.K
As an operator under Canadian 703 regs, we need to be able to maintain MOCA under IFR conditions. (True XNR?)
Therefore Cat A in those situations.
Makes good sense to plan to be able to maintain MOCA regardless of Cat A restriction or not while IFR I think
(ps: I was only joking about the zero speed thingy.... you living legend )
Therefore Cat A in those situations.
Makes good sense to plan to be able to maintain MOCA regardless of Cat A restriction or not while IFR I think
(ps: I was only joking about the zero speed thingy.... you living legend
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boys
Transport Canada has restricted some helipads (usually rooftops) to Cat A performance helos.....I am very doubtful if any of the aircraft you are flying are capable of landing at these helipads Cat A. Our aircraft have not been certified for zero speed helipad landings.
As Nick says very few have been certified for this (except the S92) and if your aircraft is.....it will be at a highly reduced gross weight.
The problem is two fold. First many pilots believe that if in the front of the AFM it says Category A they can land at these restricted helipads. Second Transport Canada has no idea what a certified Category A bird is capable of. Most helipad inspectors believe (and some pilots too) that Category A certification in the AFM is for zero speed helipad landings. It is not. It is for a rolling landing at a heliport where there is room for a run on of some sort.
Transport Canadas mandate is public safety. With this I can't argue.....but to place a performance restrictions on a helipad that very few present day helicopters are capable makes me wonder.
Do they want all operators to buy new aircraft or did they really know what they were doing when they imposed this restriction.
Transport Canada has restricted some helipads (usually rooftops) to Cat A performance helos.....I am very doubtful if any of the aircraft you are flying are capable of landing at these helipads Cat A. Our aircraft have not been certified for zero speed helipad landings.
As Nick says very few have been certified for this (except the S92) and if your aircraft is.....it will be at a highly reduced gross weight.
The problem is two fold. First many pilots believe that if in the front of the AFM it says Category A they can land at these restricted helipads. Second Transport Canada has no idea what a certified Category A bird is capable of. Most helipad inspectors believe (and some pilots too) that Category A certification in the AFM is for zero speed helipad landings. It is not. It is for a rolling landing at a heliport where there is room for a run on of some sort.
Transport Canadas mandate is public safety. With this I can't argue.....but to place a performance restrictions on a helipad that very few present day helicopters are capable makes me wonder.
Do they want all operators to buy new aircraft or did they really know what they were doing when they imposed this restriction.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Steve76:
Category A has nothing to do with being able to maintain MOCA in IFR, at least not that I'm aware of.
xnr:
You can pretty sure that the folks in Ottawa who made the decisions are aware of what Category A is. To refresh your memory there are normally four different situations for Category A - long runway, short runway, ground level helipad, and elevated helipad. For example, at least one helicopter has a limitation in the elevated helipad performance relating to the helipad size. You can't use Category A performance and limitations if the helipad is smaller than that size because of touchdown dispersion.
Read the Advisory Circular for Part 29 helicopters, found in the FAA web site - it's pretty illuminating on how the testing is done, and what the performance figures look like. I know the Bell 430 Category A Flight Manual Supplement (FMS) is nearly as thick as the 'normal' manual, and it is not easy to work out - not because Bell or Transport Canada are trying to be difficult, but because this is now as complex as calculating takeoff distance and V1 speeds in big fixed wing airplanes.
Remember this is all about trying to ensure a level of safety for helicopters with the capability to carry a lot of people. Life ain't simple anymore!
Category A has nothing to do with being able to maintain MOCA in IFR, at least not that I'm aware of.
xnr:
You can pretty sure that the folks in Ottawa who made the decisions are aware of what Category A is. To refresh your memory there are normally four different situations for Category A - long runway, short runway, ground level helipad, and elevated helipad. For example, at least one helicopter has a limitation in the elevated helipad performance relating to the helipad size. You can't use Category A performance and limitations if the helipad is smaller than that size because of touchdown dispersion.
Read the Advisory Circular for Part 29 helicopters, found in the FAA web site - it's pretty illuminating on how the testing is done, and what the performance figures look like. I know the Bell 430 Category A Flight Manual Supplement (FMS) is nearly as thick as the 'normal' manual, and it is not easy to work out - not because Bell or Transport Canada are trying to be difficult, but because this is now as complex as calculating takeoff distance and V1 speeds in big fixed wing airplanes.
Remember this is all about trying to ensure a level of safety for helicopters with the capability to carry a lot of people. Life ain't simple anymore!
XNR,
I believe you may have misunderstood CAT A as a certification. Most twins that have been certified to CAT A have a supplement that specifically details those procedures. Typically (but not always) there is four chatrts to decipher when planning CAT A depending upon the helipad dimensions:
1. Full runway
2. Short landing strip where the "roll on" landing can be achieved.
3. Elevated helipad (helipad above surrounding terrain or obstacles, ie oil platform or building top).
4. Helipad at ground level (no room for roll ons).
To give you an idea about performance, in a fictional twin of say 10,000 lbs MAUW it might claim to be "certified CAT A". When you go to the supplement, you find that it is CAT A at 10,000lbs for runways, but only CAT A when operated at less than 9000 lbs for short strips, less than 8000 lbs for elevated helipads, and less than 7000 lbs for ground level pads.
Thus in your Canadian Example where the pad is restricted to CAT A ops (lets say it is an elevated helipad) we can operate there legally as long as our take off / landing weight is less than 8000 lbs.
Despite your inferences, most twins I have flown have CAT A supplements - including even the AS355 F1 !! - and therefore they can be operated "CAT A" if required. "Full CAT A Certification" is usually meant to infer that the aircraft is capable of CAT A to a ground level helipad at MAUW under reasonable OAT/DA situations, but these are very few and far between and the label is ill defined. So whilst the AS 355 F1 is not a "full CAT A machine" per se, it can legally use your CAT A helipads when operated in accordance with the CAT A supplement.
Hope that helps.
I believe you may have misunderstood CAT A as a certification. Most twins that have been certified to CAT A have a supplement that specifically details those procedures. Typically (but not always) there is four chatrts to decipher when planning CAT A depending upon the helipad dimensions:
1. Full runway
2. Short landing strip where the "roll on" landing can be achieved.
3. Elevated helipad (helipad above surrounding terrain or obstacles, ie oil platform or building top).
4. Helipad at ground level (no room for roll ons).
To give you an idea about performance, in a fictional twin of say 10,000 lbs MAUW it might claim to be "certified CAT A". When you go to the supplement, you find that it is CAT A at 10,000lbs for runways, but only CAT A when operated at less than 9000 lbs for short strips, less than 8000 lbs for elevated helipads, and less than 7000 lbs for ground level pads.
Thus in your Canadian Example where the pad is restricted to CAT A ops (lets say it is an elevated helipad) we can operate there legally as long as our take off / landing weight is less than 8000 lbs.
Despite your inferences, most twins I have flown have CAT A supplements - including even the AS355 F1 !! - and therefore they can be operated "CAT A" if required. "Full CAT A Certification" is usually meant to infer that the aircraft is capable of CAT A to a ground level helipad at MAUW under reasonable OAT/DA situations, but these are very few and far between and the label is ill defined. So whilst the AS 355 F1 is not a "full CAT A machine" per se, it can legally use your CAT A helipads when operated in accordance with the CAT A supplement.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC helipads
As a Canadian colleague of mine pointed out, TC requires some helipads .... Cat A helicopters only or equivalent certified Op's specification... or some wording like that. Correct us if we're wrong.
Secondly, flying offshore, we limit a/c weights off the rigs to maintain some kind of " Cat A/ Cat 1" performance.
D.K
P.S. Good discussion!!
Secondly, flying offshore, we limit a/c weights off the rigs to maintain some kind of " Cat A/ Cat 1" performance.
D.K
P.S. Good discussion!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Shawn
I picked up some very useful info from the FAA site.
I will be looking for the Transport Canada equivalent.
This brings me back to my initial question.....maybe we can talk specifics. I will accept ballpark figures.
Can we list some twins which are certified for Cat A ground level helipad (vertical) operations and their corresponding gross weights on a standard day?
I picked up some very useful info from the FAA site.
I will be looking for the Transport Canada equivalent.
This brings me back to my initial question.....maybe we can talk specifics. I will accept ballpark figures.
Can we list some twins which are certified for Cat A ground level helipad (vertical) operations and their corresponding gross weights on a standard day?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll start.
S76A not certifed to Cat A for vertical operations from ground level helipads.
222A ditto.
This is to the best of my knowledge....please correct me if I am wrong.
S76A not certifed to Cat A for vertical operations from ground level helipads.
222A ditto.
This is to the best of my knowledge....please correct me if I am wrong.
It's not just an adventure....
it's just a job!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Philippines
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, Happy New Years and sorry I'm late (as usual).
Cat A???????Cat B????? Hey, I thought we went Class I, Class II? Anyways, how about the 212 and 61? Both have a published CAT A Profile.
I love the concept, but when do we use it? Hmmm? How about any time we go off a helideck? Enhanced Class II sound familiar to anyone?
Well thats all for now.
Cheers, 
OffshoreIgor
Cat A???????Cat B????? Hey, I thought we went Class I, Class II? Anyways, how about the 212 and 61? Both have a published CAT A Profile.
I love the concept, but when do we use it? Hmmm? How about any time we go off a helideck? Enhanced Class II sound familiar to anyone?
Well thats all for now.
Cheers,
OffshoreIgor
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EC135 with turbomeca 2B1A1 engines, and the right software mod, is Class 1/old Cat A for helipad at Max AUW (2835KG). It is also single pilot IFR... and very nice to fly thank you!