Believe what you want !! but more then enough cheetah pilots have sacrificed their lives to failed engines.
I am willing to believe this but your word is not enough. I have been following flight accidents for decades and while all sorts of reports exist - please point me to engine failure as one of the most frequent causes or even among the top 3. If you can't -it YOUR belief versus mine
Accidents in helicopters have happened for numerous reasons ( lack of airmenship, weather etc), but the crux of my argument is that in those cases of single engine ,where it was due to engine conking off, they were avoidable.
Infact since you say you have been following accidents details for decades, then kindly provide reference of twin engine helicopter crashing due to engine failure.
I cant provide reference in support of my assertion that single engine helicopter accident in India that are TD (technical defect) have had a major percentage of engine associated one. I am open to being refuted in this regards. Till that time - you believe what you want , I will mine.
Shubham wrote:The places where Dhruv / Mi 17 can land/drop constitute a minority, say 0.01 of overall scheme of things and even there are means of taking care of situation when such a case arises.
So you are saying that Dhruv/Mi-17 cannot land/drop in 99.99% cases. So what are you proposing exactly by demanding 2 engine helicopters for the 99.99% where they cannot land/drop
My apologies for typo on this one. I want to say Dhruv/Mi 17 can do the job 99.99 per cases.
Read my statement properly, don't miss the punctuation marks. No point in quoting a word from a sentence.
Low terrain was mentioned only while the helicopter was making approach. In approach high descent rate when terrain clearance is low is deadly. On approach if you have high rod but have height in hand then a safe go around can be carried out. In other cases the recovery is as per avoid- area curve.
Here is your statement
Reality - a twin engine helicopter which is loaded to single engine OGE weight will NOT CRASH AT ALL ( removing cases when helicopter has high rate of descent and low terrain clearance ; while coming for landing. This case can be avoided if pilot is careful) when one of its engine fails.
There are 2 fullstops and a semicolon. It says
1. Load a twin engine to single engine OGE weight
You have not explained if the helo with 2 working engines will then be allowed to reach areas that it can reach with 2 engines but not with one. As Indranil pointed out - if it has exceeded the single engine altitude it can certainly crash if one engine fails. But in your next post you say :
OEI limits are actually followed religiously. So whatever is being done now and till now , has been within these limits.
I do not believe this. You need to provide data. Not your beliefs. I do not believe that twin engine helicopters are invariably used only up to single engine height limits.
Below is the manual of mi 17 varient. https://www.manualslib.com/manual/84082 ... 17-1v.html
Page 152 of this gives the OEI limits upto 3 km. Our guys have filled in the blanks to adequately cater for our requirements. Anything further I don't have reference.
I am willing to be shown that I am wrong - but not from the changing colours of your post where you have gone from saying that twins are safer, to twins need to be restricted to Single engine limits and now you are saying that they are ALWAYS restricted to those limits despite flying only 0.01% of missions. You are moving the goalpost with every post and apart from telling me about your deadly punctuation marks and a iffy "0.01%" data point you have managed to actually quote no statistics or proof. But you refer to my beliefs and claim that I have belief and you have facts. Does not seem like that to me.
So let's clear this colour thing.
I am saying:
1. Twins are safer (redundency of one more engine, historical data is proof)
2. But life is not so simple, hence to ensure safety of twins and redundency of two engines, OEI limits are enforced. Here we have resorted to drops since, it allows view of K2 as well guys are kept feed as well as wife's can skip prayers once in a while.
3. This drop+safety+adequate load supplied works in 99.99 per cases.
What is the single engine limit for the Mi 17. How do you know that it is being implemented. I don't mind you saying that this is what you heard. That is easier to believe than this rearguard battle you are fighting to simply stick to your point
1. what percentage of Cheetah crashes were engine failure. How was that crash cause established after the crash
2. What is the single engine OGE altitude limit of the Mi 17/Dhruv?
For the time being I will ignore that fluff about "how the pilot must approach" and "what he must do and must not do". Surely if you know all that you will also be able to answer what I have asked you. If you say "This is what I believe" I will accept that as an honest answer. Or else we are still where we started. I remain unconvinced by your changing argument
As per Natasha OEI of mi 17 is 3 km at 120 KMPH.(reference above),
but our Bangalore guys have ensure we can go where ever it is required (It's purely figment of my imagination
Also I must point out a gaping hole in your argument. You claim that "OEI limits are actually followed religiously" for twin engines. If they are so worried about engine failure in twin engine helos they should surely not be such hypocrites and should ground all single engine helos because OEI limits for single engine is "No engine - so do not fly at all". How come religiosity comes in for twin engine while single engine pilots are sent to their deaths in your story. This is completely unconvincing.
Well this is the crux of the whole discussion, my guess is as good as yours. My take it that people realized the problem , did trials of alternate, one was almost finalized, freak accident sinks the whole plan. People persisted with cheetah, engine problem became too frequent, situation seems untenable, HAL came as a saving grace (albeit a bit late), Cheetal is born , keeping people happy as of now.
Summary - We are fighting with what we have, not what is required