• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities

Hmmmm.  APUs can be used when flying but within certain parameters (at least, in our fleet).  Max altitude and airspeed limits, but it is the exception not the rule.  I can't ever remember the APU being used airborne (but...I am a backender, this is flight deck stuff) .  What I know is *icing is bad, de-icing takes power and takes away some endurance*.

 
Eye In The Sky said:
Hmmmm.  APUs can be used when flying but within certain parameters (at least, in our fleet).  Max altitude and airspeed limits, but it is the exception not the rule.  I can't ever remember the APU being used airborne (but...I am a backender, this is flight deck stuff) .  What I know is *icing is bad, de-icing takes power and takes away some endurance*.

I have never operated in an aircraft where the APU could be run in flight. Many aircraft are designed with a weight on wheels switch preventing the APU even being started while airborne.

But, maybe the C-295 has an airborne APU.  :dunno:
 
My buddy flew the 235 for USCG. He said that if you were in icing conditions you would not dare run the mission system (belly radar and WO/it etc). I know it had something to do with the electrical load. But that was a slightly different airframe with a specific mission system. Whether it applies to ours, dunno.  I'm fairly certain this would not affect the aircraft weather radar as it would be separate from the mission system radar.
You would generally only run an APU airborne for a malfunction such as a loss of a generator (or the engine that turns said generator).
 
kev994 said:
  I'm fairly certain this would not affect the aircraft weather radar as it would be separate from the mission system radar.
You would generally only run an APU airborne for a malfunction such as a loss of a generator (or the engine that turns said generator).

Not all RADARs are 'seperate' though.  The one I operate, Wx is just one of the multiple modes I can select, with the option to have 2 operators;  1 doing a non-Wx mode (surface/maritime surveillance) and 1 in Wx mode.  Again, though, not all systems can run this way.

Unless you meant the WRS (aka *storm scope*)?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I have never operated in an aircraft where the APU could be run in flight. Many aircraft are designed with a weight on wheels switch preventing the APU even being started while airborne.

IIRC the SGOD can do it but only within certain limits.  I'd have to look at AOIs for certain.
 
I am unable to decipher anywhere that the C-295W does not meet ICAO requirements for flight into known icing conditions.  That linked article refers to the CASA entering clear icing (severe clear) and an attempt was made to climb out of it - resulting in a spin.  There are no aircraft in the world that are certified for flight into Severe Icing.  Even the mighty SGOD, C-27J, C-130J would have been unable to shed that ice and would have had an interesting day.

Airplanes 101 - shedding ice off surfaces (ie leading edge of wing, tail, etc) is hardly ever a function of electrical power - this is pneumatic or bleed air driven.  The C-295 has pneumatic "boots" on the leading edges of all critical flight surfaces - just look at any picture and you will see the black rubber.  The faster the aircraft, the less requirement for de-ice boots - C-130's have a hot wing.  Modern jets fly fast enough and high enough that wing ice isn't an issue.

Required Vernacular to understand:

DE-ICE ----> action taken to remove ice/frost/snow after it has been deposited on the lifting surfaces

ANTI-ICE ----> action taken before entering icing conditions to stop the acretion of ice/frost on critical surfaces.

Modern turbo-props (like the C-295) use anti-ice//de-ice on pitot tubes, static ports, windshields, propeller blades, engine nacelles, cooling intake ports, etc etc.  Some of these are electrical and draw huge Amps (prop de-ice for example).  While the rest are pneumatic (ie bleed air off the turbine engine).

LGen Lucas (ret'd) certainly is a well respected member of our community - I will not comment on his interaction with this proposal.  I do, however, believe that we have had the choice made for us and we need to move on.  This is, of course, in my humble opinion.

Regards,

Ditch
 
Ditch said:
Required Vernacular to understand:

DE-ICE ----> action taken to remove ice/frost/snow after it has been deposited on the lifting surfaces

ANTI-ICE ----> action taken before entering icing conditions to stop the acretion of ice/frost on critical surfaces.

Remember, most people don't take the mental energy to distinguish between *tank* and *APC* or *RPA* and *drone*.  De-ice, re-ice, anti-ice...same same to 99.9% of folks.

The issue isn't so much the one about anti/de-icing, (to me) it is the "not able to run mission systems and de-ice at the same time very well".  I don't know how the 295 works, I am (somewhat) familiar with the one on our fleet (some is bleed air, some is electrical) but I do know I wouldn't be a fan of hearing "mission system powering off for de-icing".  Generally any time we are in icing we'd really like to keep RADAR up for Wx and IFF ... its commonly a go/no-go item (for us).

Not sure what the current aircraft doing the job have now for RADAR *but* I am confident in saying that the new platform, if it has a good multimode RADAR with a experienced operator will be a super addition to the crew.  It would be a detrimental to the mission and crew to shut off a RADAR in challenging Wx and could also negatively impact time to the location and ONSTA time.
 
So I asked my buddy for clarification and he said the 235 is mostly run on DC power with the exception of the mission system and the prop and engine deice/anti-ice systems, which are all AC powerand run off of separate AC generators, you could theoretically run it all but with surges you might run into issues. The issue is supposed to be solved in the 295, but of course he's never flown that. The mission system was separate from the weather radar and TCAS, they both stayed online.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Hmmmm.  APUs can be used when flying but within certain parameters (at least, in our fleet).  Max altitude and airspeed limits, but it is the exception not the rule.  I can't ever remember the APU being used airborne (but...I am a backender, this is flight deck stuff) .  What I know is *icing is bad, de-icing takes power and takes away some endurance*.

Severe icing is {imo} worse than a fire on-board because it's all exterior and hard to reach (de-icing boots will obviously help quite a bit but they're not perfect)
You can lose 30% lift and drag can increase by 40% in the worst of conditions.. that is scary af
 
Fires are no less scary.

Ask the passengers and crew of Swissair 111, or a Nationair DC8 in the middle east sometime in the 1980s when a pilgrim on his way to Mecca decided to brew tea with a Coleman-type stove, or a bunch of other people who met similar miserable deaths.

Both fire and ice are to be avoided.
 
Loachman said:
Fires are no less scary.

Ask the passengers and crew of Swissair 111, or a Nationair DC8 in the middle east sometime in the 1980s when a pilgrim on his way to Mecca decided to brew tea with a Coleman-type stove, or a bunch of other people who met similar miserable deaths.

Both fire and ice are to be avoided.
I didn't mean to downplay the severity of a fire.
I've only experienced icing conditions so I guess my post was a little bias.

Both situations are extremely dangerous
 
CPTGabeyP said:
I didn't mean to downplay the severity of a fire.
I've only experienced icing conditions so I guess my post was a little bias.

Both situations are extremely dangerous

Icing usually leads to a quick thump.  The men of "Stinger 25" endured much worse before the end (RCAF: Flight Comment - Flight Safety magazine pp.9/16 RIP: Wally & Bob :salute: ).

Regards
G2G
 
CPTGabeyP said:
I didn't mean to downplay the severity of a fire.
I've only experienced icing conditions so I guess my post was a little bias.

Both situations are extremely dangerous

Yup.

There is no shortage of things that can kill one, but some are of more concern than others regardless of actual likelihood.

I was more concerned about fire, not necessarily while airborne, and wirestrikes than anything else, plus a little concerned about being attacked by unseen mad bulls while hovering in their fields - but that, of course, was due to our rather unique operating environment.

I managed to avoid all but the middle one, but was charged by two herds of cows and missed.

We were VFR only, and did all of our simulated IFR on sunny days, so icing was never a big worry.

One of our guys did encounter unforecast freezing rain once, and ended up flying sideways during his really-short-final approach, and landed sideways, as it built up on his windscreen bubble very quickly. Between one-quarter and one-half of an inch accumulated within a couple of minutes and he could not see a thing straight ahead. He was already on final for the pad due to a hasty all-aircraft recall, and about 100 feet up, when he picked up the first few drops.
 
Good2Golf said:
Icing usually leads to a quick thump.

There's often plenty of time to experience fear and horror and denial before that bump, though.

More recent fire-related incidents, with one unhappy and one happy ending:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ch146434-griffon-epilogue-flight-safety-investigation-report/hldepc5a

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ch147202-chinook-epilogue-flight-safety-investigation-report/hl6j9ilb
 
Looking for corroboration, but looks like Leonardo wants to know why Airbus was allowed to go/knew that the budget for FWSAR had been changed....
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/exclusive-team-spartan-reveals-details-fwsar-court-challenge/
 
If Leonardo can prove even a reasonable doubt to the court that Airbus received information that they did not get, the court might toss the decision on that basis alone. Of course if Airbus/government shows that Leonardo did receive the information at the same time and failed to account for it, much face will be lost.....
 
Colin P said:
https://www.skiesmag.com/news/exclusive-team-spartan-reveals-details-fwsar-court-challenge/

It's like deja vu [lol:

The article does a good job explaining the APU situation. It seems hard to believe that Leonardo could be cheaper than Airbus based on the published numbers but that is why you put it out for tender! I'd like to know what Leonardo was offering for that much of a price difference. I think the CPFH difference would be interesting as well but 3000 versus 2000 is a lot different than 30000 versus 20000.

More importantly I wonder where the RCMP investigation is on this file how exactly did Airbus know they could go over the budget by that much and not Leonardo. What would be the justification for the government not informing both bidders?
 
Back
Top