No autos insurance problem

[B47]

Has anyone else had this condition applied to a recent insurance renewal? Read your policy carefully - it might be in there.

There is a new restriction in my policy renewal limiting autorotations to only when an instructor is present. I think this is unreasonable and not in the interests of flight safety, if this means autos to a power recovery (min 100’) are not allowed.

This new condition isn't directed just at me for any reason (PPL, R22 + B47 rated, current aircraft R44, 500 hrs, same insurer, no accidents or claims ever in eighteen years...).

I understand the case for autos to the ground is probably the cause of many accidents and claims and I don’t do these by myself except annually on my LPC with an examiner. This is fair enough and I understand the position of the underwriters on this if enough machines have been bent to cost them significant claims. What is absolutely not reasonable is to prevent routine solo practice of entry into autorotation at a safe height. It is also a perfectly acceptable technique to use autos for rapid descent in certain situations but which is always followed by a power recovery around 150'. Surely to remain in practice is in the wider interests of flight safety?

I'm having real trouble getting agreement out my insurers on this and am about to insist upon this condition being removed otherwise I'm going elsewhere. I was awake enough to renew a few weeks ago on the written condition that this clause be removed. I'm reluctant to change companies as I've had good service from the insurers for many years, but they have to stand their ground with the underwriters.

If most private machines are going to have this condition applied, we should stand together.

[VfrpilotPB/2]

B47,

Insurers are indeed a tricky lot, I can see why they would place such a clause, but in the normal state of flying you should still be able to practice an Auto to power recovery at every landing you need to do( or nearly every one), that would still be in the bounds of safe flying for the insurers and allow you to be "Pin Sharp" should the need arise for a full blown EOL when and if things ever go quiet, dont you think?

Peter R-B
VfrpilotPb;)

[Canuck Guy]

It is also a perfectly acceptable technique to use autos for rapid descent in certain situations but which is always followed by a power recovery around 150'


Are you serious? What on Earth are you doing out there that you see the need to enter a power-off auto all the way down to 150'? :eek:

[manfromuncle]

Are you serious? What on Earth are you doing out there that you see the need to enter a power-off auto all the way down to 150'? :eek:

I agree, what a daft way to lose height. Just put the power down to 12", that will give you a decent ROD and the governer will still work fine.

I agree with the insurance company. Doing autos when training, to the power recovery, is fine, but there's no need to enter an auto any other time. There's a risk of the engine stopping (incorrect idle adjustment etc), forgetting carb heat, overspeeding the rotor/engine, bringing in the power too late and hitting the ground/something, incorrect recovery (rolling throttle wrong way etc).

The R22 is NOT the Bell 47/Hughes 300, it requires special attention in autorotation, you can lose RPM very quickly.

Imagine someone entering auto to lose height, say the chap also flies fixed-wing, he has a brain fart and pushes the stick forward when entering, RPM dives, horn goes off, he pulls the collective UP, game over. It could easily happen.

[helicopter-redeye]

I recall B47 has a 44 (with a small round hole in the side ..). There have been lots of damage based on people entering autorotation in the 44 and rolling the Nr right over the top (no pips to tell you its coming..). The insurers are trying to cover their bases against where the risks are going to occur, and having an FI watching you and the Nr/ RPM while you do it drags the risk right down (AND THE PRICE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE)

h-r

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Being an ex-instructor and having seen how many PPLs and some CPLs end up flying 6 months or so after getting there licence (Ex people who don't fly a lot) not a dig at all people many maintain a good standard of flying, but even the better ones can fudge things up when practicing things like autorotation, better to take an instructor along for the ride.

So I can see why the insurace companies would want to do that but you could always change insurance companies.

[Helinut]

However,

If an owner does not practice simple autos between annual LPCs, if he/she needs to do one in anger, you can pretty much GUARANTEE he/she will f**k it up. It is a perishable skill, like most in flying that you do not do every time you fly.

Fly with your fingers crossed - then if it does happen just kiss your a**se goodbye...........

Practice is everything. If it isn't practiced it won't happen when you need it

[This could all be avoided by regular flights with an instructor, but many/most owners avoid that as much as possible]

[nigelh]

I think this :confused:is rubbish !!! reducing power down to auto level is part of any steep descent and your insurance co doesnt need to know about it ......do not confer on them intelligence and technical knowledge they do not have ........what they mean is no practice engine failures by yourself which is different . I have always advocated banning autos to the ground solely on the basis that people seem to ( yes mainly robinsons ....)mess it up regularly and this ends up on my insurance :{ If you want to do eol,s pay an extra premium or do power recovery which is just as good in my mind. if you then get a real one it really doesnt matter if you mess up the last few feet .:eek:

[Gaseous]

I do them all the time , in fact virtually every flight. Noise abatement. I can sneak into the village virtually un-noticed with it at tick over. I'd better dig out the documents and have a read.

Thank you for pointing this out. It is in my policy too. What a lot of crap.

[muffin]

It also appeared on my policy at the last renewal. Also a new prohibition on any pilot over 80 years of age.

[SimonCFI]

Hi everyone!
Also being an ex-instructor, I have to agree with the insurance companies on this one. A former student (PPL and no intention of doing more) asked me once during training if he should practice autos when flying alone. I told him absolutely not. I could tell you endless stories on how people tried to kill me during practice autos (of course unintentional but they wouldn't be around today if I wouldn't have been there with them).
Point is, if you are PPL and don't fly a lot, I wouldn't recommend practicing autos without an FI. Practice them with one (or at least with an experienced pilot on your side).
If you fly alot and often do autos that's another story (best example are the Robinson Test- and Companypilots, who do an autorotation on every single flight for noise abatement reasons, but then they are all CFIs :) )

Now, the insurance company doesn't know how good your autos are, so they put that chapter in there. And if you fly commercially and ask your employer how he/she feels about you doing autos without a good reason, I am pretty sure you will get a NO.
Just my opinion and personal experience.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Although this probably has nothing to do with this instance, an acquaintance of mine wrecked his Enstrom F-28, doing autos to the runway in advance of his 135 renewal check ride.

The FAA asked him what happened and he said he just blew it, there was no need for further investigation. But he said it had really screwed up his 79th birthday celebrations for that evening! :}

[Gaseous]

The clause specifically states 'practice autorotation' which I presume is to exclude the losses caused by practice engine failures. Very sensible. However as stated above, I don't do them for practice. I do them for socially acceptable flying and as part of my normal flight profile. Is this excluded? I'll phone Haywards tomorrow and find out.

Is it unusual to use autorotation as a normal flight manoeuvre? I have always done it. Thousands of them literally.

Its a much quieter approach and means that the engine does not need to be cooled down running on the ground for anything like the same amount of time. This is relevant 'off airport'.

Oh yes - don't most autorotation accidents happen WITH an instructor on board??:confused:

[imabell]

gaseous, nauseous, you live in la la land mate,

i have read a lot of rubbish in my life and you are up there with the best,

auto's for noise abatement and engine cooling, you cannot be serious, the sad part is you probably are.:{:{:ugh:

[bb in ca]

"I do them for socially acceptable flying and as part of my normal flight profile"

Thanks to the comments above I now have a better understanding as to why private helicopter owners the world over have so many accidents during simple fair weather flights. It's not because of poor autorotation skills. It's because they're convincing themselves that practices like those mentioned in this thread are normal. It's not normal. I can only wonder what other socially acceptable flying practices have been dreamt up by this community.

[Canuck Guy]

Its a much quieter approach and means that the engine does not need to be cooled down running on the ground for anything like the same amount of time. This is relevant 'off airport'.



You got a page number from the "Normal Procedures" section of your RFM to back that remark up?


The clause specifically states 'practice autorotation' which I presume is to exclude the losses caused by practice engine failures. Very sensible. However as stated above, I don't do them for practice. I do them for socially acceptable flying and as part of my normal flight profile. Is this excluded? I'll phone Haywards tomorrow and find out.


Congratulations, you are now the laughing stock of the helicopter world. Well done sir.:D

[Gaseous]

(best example are the Robinson Test- and Companypilots, who do an autorotation on every single flight for noise abatement reasons, but then they are all CFIs )

Seems I'm not in a minority of one.

You got a page number from the "Normal Procedures" section of your RFM to back that remark up?

Yes. FM 3-3
"Stabilize temperatures at 1800RPM until cylinder temperatures drop to 350 deg f."

Following an auto it is there. There is no need to ground run. My neighbours appreciate that.

[AndyJB32]

Gaseous, what about the engine workload during the power recovery and hover before landing?

I'd be very surprised if any instructor is teaching an auto as part of a normal landing technique? If the area is so noise sensitive that you have to start doing autos to avoid upsetting people, maybe it's time to move the helicopter somewhere else, rather than start adjusting the landing profile in such a big way? By the same logic, an even quieter approach would be to turn the engine off at 2000feet and do an engine off landing :rolleyes:

Andy

[Canuck Guy]

Yes. FM 3-3
"Stabilize temperatures at 1800RPM until cylinder temperatures drop to 350 deg f."



Read the rest of the page. It says you will have landed first.

[Gaseous]

God you guys are confrontational. - and Canuck guy you are wrong. FM 3-3 does not say land first. When I did my PPL virtually every flight terminated with an autorotation followed by short hover taxi and land. Maybe my instructor was too enthusiastic but I have just carried on what I was taught. I remember vividly being told that an auto approach was quieter, and doing what I have always done, including recovery and a short taxi I find the hottest head is around 320f. There is no need to subject anyone to a running helicopter for any longer than required. I am comfortable with it. My instructor who does my LPCs is comfortable with it. Apparently the insurers are not so no more autos. Its not a problem.

[manfromuncle]

Terminating every flight with an auto because of noise issues is probably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on this forum. Fair enough to do this in training when the student needs auto practice, but afterwards?!!

What's wrong with terminating every training flight with a steep approach/running landing/stuck pedal landing/downwind approach/governor off approach. They are all just as valid skills as doing an auto, and probably more useful in the real world.

Just goes to prove the theory that students copy instructors. Monkey see, monkey do.

I would love to hear Frank Robsinson opinion of this shutdown "procedure".

[outofwhack]

I'm with Gaseous but I wouldnt auto every landing. I think its healthy to keep in practice with all modes of flight.

Lets not forget:
1. Autogyro pilots autorotate every landing [and every takeoff] and dont have to rely on a tail rotor.

2. Many power pilots all their faith in their engine that when it stops theres a long pause while they try to understand whats wrong. A partial power failure is far worse than complete failure as it increases this thinking time. I've had one.

3. I'd rather fly with Gaseous [and I have] than someone who only practices autos once per year.

OOW

[Gaseous]

I dont fly a Robinson so Franks opinion not relevant nor is the bit about governors. Heres a quote from a very well respected pilot, David Voy from 2006 about a similar subject.
I was flying the police Enstroms over London in the 1970's that suffered clutch failures on two occations. The first has been metioned by "Gaseous" when I was over Clapham Junction and did an engine off onto Battersea Heliport. The second was close to Stratford Railway Goods Yard in East London and involved another engine off under some pylon wires.
Both were achieved succesfully, in my view, because we constantly practiced autorotations - sometimes 5 or more per day. When the emergency occured I was completely confident that I could execute the engine off with total accuracy. That only comes with practive and training.

[manfromuncle]

My mistake, I thought we were talking about an R22.

Even so, terminating every approach with an auto is still an odd way to fly.

[Gaseous]

Fair enough Manfromuncle.

I didnt clarify it was an Enstrom and to be fair I hated doing autorotations in an R22.

The aircraft I fly is the one referred to by David Voy, and like him, I am as confident as I can be that I can get it down if need be, with the best possible chance of not bending it.

Your right, it may be an odd way to fly but as a habit, autoing the last approach of the day when I return home has kept me sharp, kept it quiet, cooled it down and I enjoy it.

As I said though. No more:{

[topendtorque]

Crazy stuff
Autorotations to the ground, if taught properly at ab-initio and practiced annually, at least biennually are NOT a perishable skill. If a pilot perishes his skill so quickly that it is noticeable at this frequency, then he should not be a pilot and would demonstrate it at his annual check.

I agree that;
1) chopping a throttle without reason may lead to an unexpected engine stop,
2) putting the sprag clutch, or freewheel, to excess use would be in contravention of the normal expected usage, and therefore could be hazardous, I.E. lead to a before than usual TBO failure.
3) shock cooling of cylinders leads to top end failures (of the cylinder)
4) sudden and sustained reductions in power will lead to shock cooling of cylinders.
tet

[B47]

Manfromuncle: >> Are you serious? What on Earth are you doing out there that you see the need to enter a power-off auto all the way down to 150'?<<

read my post again. The need is quite clear – PRACTICE.

R44 not R22. As a R22 owner over ten years ago, I’m now personally convinced low time PPLs and those that never practise entry into auto (other than once a year on their LPC) just never get that lever down fast enough in a 22. Wasting two seconds in an R22 with the surprise of much more yaw than in any practise, I think has killed more than a few pilots. I’m gob-smacked that any instructor out there thinks it’s a bad idea for a 500 hour PPL not to practise autos a few times a year when one up, no passengers, in a 44.

Red-eye: >> There have been lots of damage based on people entering autorotation in the 44 and rolling the Nr right over the top (no pips to tell you its coming..).<<

So what? - never ever practise then? My argument is about flight safety, not the underwriter’s profits. I get the opposition loud and clear. The list is long:

Flying schools that don’t want students practicing autos solo (of course)
Self-fly hire outfits that don’t want to risk overspeeds
Underwriters that want to avoid every possible potential risk and claim
Insurance companies that don’t want to argue with underwriters

Again, so what? I don’t need to be told why the insurers want to minimise their risk, but I’m saying it’s an unreasonable condition.

A very interesting gulf opening up here in attitudes between the PPLs and commercial guys. Firstly, I’m not a fresh PPL – been flying Robbos and my B47 for eighteen years now. Absolutely agree low hour pilots shouldn’t be practising without an instructor, but is anyone seriously suggesting that practising autos for a constantly current 100hr a year pilot with his own machine is a bad idea? What this tells me is, because it isn’t a routine to practise autos in commercial work (of course) that you don’t appreciate the importance of PPLs flying every couple of weeks practising them now and again. Either that or the cushion of a turbine or two makes you think it’ll never happen to you. I’m not talking about steaming around, doing them all the time and chucking her into auto descents all the time just to get down. Far from it – just practicing say every quarter and recovering at around 500’ – I’m amazed than anyone thinks that’s not a good idea! I only said 150’ because I need the flexibility from the insurers (i.e. not to the ground). This new condition prohibiting autos is like your car insurance preventing you from doing more than 30 miles an hour. I’m not going to accept this condition, otherwise I’m moving companies.

Nigelh: All agreed. But the wording on the new policy is no autorotations. I have asked them to change the wording to no EOLs and that’s what I’m having trouble getting out of them.

bb in ca: Sorry, but sneering at all PPLs as if we’re all the same with the same attitudes means your comments go straight in the bin.

[AndyJB32]

Just out of interest, has anybody got any stats to compare accidents caused by a pilot not reacting correctly to a situation that required an auto, as against stats for accidents caused by pilots practicing autos by themselves?

Might be interesting to find out. At the moment i'm inclined to side with the insurers on this, but havn't seen any facts to back my gut reaction up.

[rotorfossil]

Sadly the argument has become a circular one. Autorotations have become a big deal instead of a normal exercise so people don't practice them routinely. Therefore there is a greater chance that when it is important, like when the donk has lost power, wholly or partially, there will be hesitation before lowering the lever - not a good idea in R22's.
I have a strong suspicion that in R22 accidents where the witnesses said the engine was making unusual noises, then the rotor seemed to be going slowly and the blades and the tail broke up, it was simply that the pilot didn't lower the lever. The technique of entering auto should not be a problem and the insurance companies are not actually IMHO increasing safety. I am not aware of accidents due to autorotations per se. EOL's are something completely different and should only be flown with a competent instructor.

[nigelh]

My question is ...WHY tell them ?? Nobody is going to know if you do an auto or just a steep approach ......i am sure it is not allowed to fly with your old man in your hand but we all do it .....well maybe in someone elses :) and unless you tell them they will be blissfully ignorant :D Otherwise just change companies ...in 25 yrs i have never had that imposed on me . I think discretion is the word .......

[VfrpilotPB/2]

I hate to sound a little jerked off here BUT, you chaps who are stating that to regularly do and practice Autos is way out of line and shows some sort of lack of ability,... well being a PPL(H) and very proud of my ability means that every time I fly I am prepared for things to go quiet, or lumpy or anything to do with the lumps of ally not doing what Mr Lycoming planned them to do,..

Now to listen to you people saying Autos should only be done with a Fi makes me feel sort of sad really , for it sounds like you feel that we as mere PPLs dont have what it takes to be trusted to practise what could be the only move left in the end game when Mr Lycoming spits his dummy out and things go silent.

I for one will during every flight I make carry out some sort of practice Auto, I have no fear of my ability at this moment in time, I am always questioning my every move when flying, but equally I have no fear of Autos or the recovery from such moves.

I have flown with many pilots, all of them have showed me how they practice their Autos, so we PPLs are not alone!

Peter R-B
VfrpilotPB

[GeorgeMandes]

I for one will during every flight I make carry out some sort of practice Auto, I have no fear of my ability at this moment in time, I am always questioning my every move when flying, but equally I have no fear of Autos or the recovery from such moves.


And in each instance, you practice that auto into appropriate wind and to a spot where a touch down would be successful?

George

[parabellum]

I would have thought that if you are in the position to own and operate your own helicopter then you could also afford one hours dual per month? Go off and practice clearing approaches, towering take-offs, downwind landings, hover exercises like a pedal turn one way whilst describing a circle over the ground in the opposite direction, sloping ground landings, X wind landings etc. etc. just one exercise per dual hour then come back to a field and do several practice autos with the FI, to the ground if allowed?

Those thinking of changing insurers, you will probably find that the underwriters have been talking to each other and agreed some standard terms and conditions, highly likely they will all be the same.

nigelh - You may want to familiarise yourself with the ramifications of non-disclosure of essential information. If your policy says you mustn't do it and you haven't agreed an additional premium with your insurer to allow you to do it and you go ahead anyway your policy is void.
The onus is on you, the insured, to keep the insurer fully advised. Not telling the underwriter but doing it anyway is pushing your luck:=

[VfrpilotPB/2]

George,

Exactly!

Peter R-B

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

I gave my opinions earlier.

There’s a very fine line between over confidence and actual ability, I’m not suggesting that the people who posted earlier are overconfident but it is possible. If you actually damaged the helicopter RRPM over speed for example practicing an auto, which is very easy to do in some helicopters, would you say something or keep quiet (assuming you don’t own the aircraft, but even if you do it needs to be reported)

As Parabellum said if you can afford your own machine you can afford to fly with an instructor once a month to practice a few autos. You’ll gain a lot more from it than practicing alone.

Practice alone at your own peril.

[topendtorque]

I think discretion is the word .......

Oh me, oh my, this from nigel, cough cough, I'll get me cou-- coat, cough.

oh dear, dashed dotty flu weather this year.

[Jack Plug]

Someone asked about stats. Checking through VeeAnys database there are loads of accidents with FIs on board and guess what? Not found any with PPLs doing autos on their own.

And in each instance, you practice that auto into appropriate wind and to a spot where a touch down would be successful?

You mean a bit like the hughes that crashed into a hillside in cumbria when the hugely experienced examiner sprung an auto on the PPL owner, with nowhere to land and it all went bad, allegedley.

Seems to me the risk to helis is when FIs with students do engine off LANDINGS. Not PPLS doing the odd auto to the recovery in private.

:E:E

[parabellum]

Then I question the competence of the FIs Jack. Any stats on how many successful EOLs have been accomplished by FI and student?;)

[Backward Blade]

I'm a commercial driver who does annual training mostly only once a year but on 4 different types. Almost 3000 hours and 3 real life auto's (2 with the engine still running...kind of) I find no benefit of actually doing an auto..power recovery or EOL...without an instructor as absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of the excercise is to practice, granted. BUT to do so without a second set of eyes to point out some of the finer details is absolutely dumb. Even myself when doing autorevs on the turbines I still take somebody with equal or more experience at least for no other reason than to critique various stages of the auto...EVEN THOUGH IT"S A POWER RECOVERY. If you want to do it on a regular basis, become an instructor...THAT's WHAT THEY DO. Otherwise do yourself a favour and hire one once in a while at least for no other reason than to knock that "Pride" down a few notches. Hell, at 500 hrs, if my boss found out I was shooting power recovery's to any height without an instructor or second set of eyes he would have kicked my ass out the door so fast that said ass would still have the boot lodged in it to this day. Maybe you should get your head out of yours:ugh:

[Jack Plug]

Any stats on how many successful EOLs have been accomplished by FI and student?

No, but obviously quite a lot. The failure rate with FIs aboard however small has written off a hell of a lot of R22s though.

There seems to be a real divergence of opinions here. The ex colonials, CPLs and new PPLS see autos as an emergency only thing. the old timer PPLs see them as routine as any other flight manouver. Maybe attitudes have changed and us old timers are out of date. Maybe we all trainedat the same school??

[Backward Blade]

As for the FI's and student ratio thing, rather than put up the number of accidents w/ vs without instructors on board, try putting the total number of auto's that each instructor has done and the number of hours they have and put that up against the total number of hours of ppl's and their total hours then come up with an accident ratio.

Once that's all said and done I don't care if you are a PPL or a CPL, it's just a matter of adding to the learning curve that you as a helicopter operator should learn to come to terms with... don't stop learning and it always helps to have a second opinion to keep you on the straight and very narrow road to perfection...AND THAT INVOLVES AN INSTRUCTOR or if you have a billion hours at least somebody to check you out and discuss other options. NUFF said

[GeorgeMandes]

I believe that having an experienced instructor along to watch you and explain the fine points of emergency procedures is invaluable.

Some years back, I was flying a Jet Ranger from Texas to Alaska, with Wayne Brown, from Bell Helicopter. Wayne was my initial helicopter instructor, and he soloed me in helicopters and looked after me thru three helicopter ratings. During a quiet time somehwere in Alberta, we got to talking about how many touch down autos he had done to date. As best as he could calculate, the number at that time was about 78,000 touch down auto rotations. It is pretty clear that Wayne, and virtually all the Bell Academy staff have forgotten more than I know about helicopter emergencies.

Their confidence and experience allows them to push your envelope further, learn best procedures and avoid bad habits. Any one that thinks they are better off practicing emergencies on their own is probably kidding themselves.

George

[Backward Blade]

Thanks George, much more eloquant than myself.:ok: