Rotor Torque

Troubles plagued the LTS-101-650 engine in that installation, however, and the AS350D never enjoyed the success of the French engined version. Noting the acceptance of the AS350 airframe worldwide, Allison developed a retrofit kit for their C30 powerplant-a 650shp variant of the popular 250 series. The C30 also powers the S-76A, Bell LongRanger Ill, and MD-530F helicopters. It is also being considered as an STC replacement for the LTS-101 in the Bell 222 another trouble plagued installation.

MR&W chief Tony Masling said he intends to manufacture a substantial portion of the retrofit kit locally and thus expects to offer cost savings over the Allison produced kits. Whilst the C30M can be fitted to either the AS350B or D models, there are presently no AS350Ds on the Australian Register. According to Masling, work will commence shortly on converting a demonstrator. Eight options for the kit are already held and modifications are in progress which will extend certain critical TBO’s for the installation.

Lloyd Aviation to Provide Offshore Pilots to China

Adelaide based Lloyd Aviation has won the contract to supply pilots to fly Chinese S-76’s supporting an offshore exploration venture being led by an American drilling company. Conceding to the supply of CAAC owned helicopters, the American Company reportedly insisted upon at least 1 expatriate crew per helicopter as a condition of the deal. The employment opportunity has been timely for some ex-NSCA pilots.

Nsw Elcom Buys Latest A109- Police to Upgrade

The Electricity Commission of NSW recently announced acquisition of the latest Agusta 109C ‘Linear’ as a fleet addition to the existing Bell JetRanger Ill. The machine will be used for Government VIP transport as well as ELCOM business. Delivery of the twin engine machine -which will be fitted with new composite main rotor blades and the 250-C20R powerplants-is scheduled for late June.

The machine was originally earmarked for the NSW Police, however, the Police apparently are not going to get a twin engine machine to replace their crashed BK-117. It is now thought the police will update their fleet of 10 year old JetRanger Ill’s with 1-3 single engine turbine helicopters. An exact specification is not known and may await release of those sections of the ‘Grey Report’ dealing with rescue helicopter services in NSW.

Aga-7 Update

At presstime, a 6 member committee comprising representation from the CAA, HAA, and AFAP is touring North America, the UK, and Japan to get a picture of helipad requirements in those jurisdictions. The committee was briefed by the CAA to review AGA-7 and will not only be investigating the legislation but also its practical application in major metropolitan areas of the world. A report is expected soon after the committee’s return.

Nsw Spcc Plays ‘Chopper-Stopper’

One could almost be forgiven for concluding that the NSW State Pollution Control Commission is patently ‘anti-helicopter’. The authority charged with administering the various NSW antipollution Acts has certainly thrown its share of obstacles into the path of the urban helicopter industry recently.

In late 1982, the SPCC released ‘guidelines’ governing helicopter noise levels in residential areas. The ‘guidelines’ were allegedly based upon an extensive study of community reaction to aircraft noise conducted by scientists from the National Acoustics Laboratory (NAL). The SPCC ‘guidelines’ differed, however, in some crucial aspects in relation to the measurement of aircraft noise. For example, both the NAL report and International (ICAO) Standard used ‘slow response’ sound meter settings, while the SPCC proposed ‘fast response’ settings – arguing that this was more appropriate for the modulated helicopter vis-a-vis other transport related noise sources. But in addition to changing the unit of measurement, the SPCC arbitrarily subtracted quite a few decibels from the recommended levels that would be derived using the NAL study. The resultant ‘guidelines’ were incorporated into the SPCC’s Noise Control Manual. Their true impact was to be felt some 2 years late when the NSW Government ‘quietly’ amended regulations under the Noise Control Act, 1975, making all helicopter landing areas ‘Scheduled Premises’-thus requiring both a ‘Noise Licence’ and a ‘Pollution Control Approval’ to be issued (or denied) by -you guessed it – the SPCC.

Not surprisingly, some members of the helicopter industry were criticizing the SPCC’s arbitrary approach. Apparently in response, the SPCC (through its representation on the ‘Australian Environment Council’) lobbied the Standards Association of Australia (SAA) to develop a ‘Standard’ for helicopter noise in residential areas. It was suggested that the various pollution control agencies of the Australian states wanted a uniform ‘Standard’ which they could incorporate into their own delegated legislation. The SAA responded by appointing a committee comprising of broad cross-section of pollution control, acoustic, and rotary wing aviation expertise. Included on the committee was a delegate from the Helicopter Association of Australia and one of the authors of the original NAL report. Whilst the discussions of the SAA committee are not a matter of public record, it is understood that a representative from the NSW SPCC lobbied very heavily for adoption of a standard even more stringent than the SPCC’s own ‘guidelines’ – suggesting that NSW would not follow the SAA ‘Standard’ unless it reflected their ideas.

Notwithstanding this attempted ‘heavying’ of the committee by officers of the NSW SPCC, the SAA settled on a draft standard (as reported in previous Rotor Torques) substantially less stringent than NSW ‘guidelines’and more in line with the results of the NAL study. Apparently not happy with the ‘umpire’s decision’, some officers of the NSW SPCC are reported to have placed their own submission before the ‘Australian Environment Council’ (AEC). It is not clear whether this submission seeks a complete rejection of the SAA draft by the Council, but it is apparent those elements are determined to ‘overturn’ the evidence-by the Standards Association. The HAA, upon learning that only half the story had been told to the AEC, endeavoured to ensure that all the materials upon which the SAA determined its ‘Standard’ were placed before the Council. At presstime, it is not known whether they succeeded.

It appears the major reorganisation within the SPCC which occurred in July, 88 marked a watershed in helicopter industry SPCC relations. Despite numerous industry requests for consultation – there have been no meetings since then. Indeed, while the issue of ‘slow response’ versus ‘fast response’ was being thrashed out in the SAA committee, some elements of the SPCC -sympathetic to noise sensitive residents underlying the Sydney Helicopter Transit Lanes, lobbied NSW Environment Minister Tim Moore to close the helicopter lanes (R409). After taking legal advice, the Minister announced that the matter was under Federal jurisdiction and he had no power to act – however the seemingly intense ‘anti-helicopter’ sentiment within the SPCC caused industry alarm. In an attempt to defuse the issue, the NSW Branch of the HAA offered instruction in ‘Fly Neighbourly’ techniques and urged its members to avoid using the lanes whenever possible. However, alleged ATC staff shortages and airspace closures have frequently forced helicopters back into the lanes in spite of all good intentions.

And while this whole scenario was unfolding, charter operator ‘Sydney Helicopter Service’ was getting a taste of the SPCC’s anti-helicopter tactics. In an effort to provide a solution to the Sydney CBD Helipad (or lack thereof) problem, SHS boss David Gemmell proposed a ‘floating helideck’. A ‘Pollution Control Approval’, ‘Noise Licence’, and ‘Environmental Impact Statement’ (EIS) were all required-and the Maritime Services Board was nominated to be the ‘Determining Authority’ for the application. During previous investigation of sites for a Sydney CBD helipad, the SPCC had developed a Helicopter Noise Footprint to provide a preliminary assessment of the suitability or otherwise of helipad sites simply by over laying the ‘footprint’ or ‘envelope’ on a map of the site aligned with the proposed flight paths to determine whether commercial or residential premises fell within the respective ‘exclusion zones’. The footprint was based upon conservatively meeting the SPCC ‘guidelines’ for 5 movements per flightpath per day by light turbine helicopters. The apparent official view was that Gemmell needed MSB approval before he could put his vessel on the water in Sydney Harbour-therefore it would have been impossible to conduct ‘actual’ noise studies for landings on the vessel. Indeed the philosophy of the ‘floating helideck’ was the ‘spreading’ of helicopter noise impact over a wider catchment by shifting the helideck.

Instructed by the Planning Department to consult with the SPCC in preparing the EIS, Gemmell’s Acoustic and Town Planning Consultants were in turn directed by the SPCC to use the ‘Footprint’. SPCC officers indicated that an EIS thus prepared would meet their requirements. Gemmell’s consultants accordingly prepared their EIS and even included supplementary data to validate and confirm the ‘SPCC Footprint’. In the end, how ever, the MSB refused SHS’ application. The MSB were required by law to report the reasons for their refusal and that report disclosed the most ardent opponent of the floating helideck proposal to be none other than the NSW SPCC!-notwithstanding: that SPCC officers instructed Gemmell’s consultants to use their ‘Footprint’ in preparation of the EIS; that those officers had communicated to Gemmell’s consultants that the EIS was adequate; that the SPCC had to virtually disown their own noise footprint in order to oppose the project; and that it would have been virtually impossible to conduct actual noise tests in the absence of the Floating Helideck which could not be built until the whole project was approved! Thus, pursuant to ‘Catch 22’ of the SPCC’s ‘Chopper Stoppers’ Guidebook’, the floating helideck was sunk.

Apart from the question of adequacy of the EIS, the NSW SPCC refused to issue SHS with their ‘Pollution Control Approval’ or ‘Noise Licence’ for the floating helideck until Development Approval had been issued – as they have done with other Helipad applications in the past. The State Pollution Control Act, as it was originally drafted, contained such a requirement. However, that sub-section of the Act was repealed several years ago. One might reasonably infer from the repeal of that sub-section that Parliament did not intend for final ‘development approval’ to be a pre-condition of ‘Pollution Control Approvals’ any longer. But it seems even the will of the people of New South Wales as enacted by their elected representatives holds very little sway with the SPCC – when it comes to stopping choppers.