Are students aware of the danger they are in!?

[Heliblob]

A moral issue..... should students be told of the danger they are in by a third party?

I was at a near south coast airfield today and was stunned to see an R22 hovering at 100ft after some so called exercises. Down wind manoeuvres in the avoid curve and pirouettes being performed down wind at approximately 50ft. From my observations the sortie was primarily conducted with-in the avoid curve.

My question for discussion is.... Some students are blissfully unaware of the dangers an FI will put them in. From a moral standpoint, if the FI will not tell the student they are in danger, should someone else!?

[homonculus]

'so called exercises'
'pirouettes'

Seems pretty emotive to me. It isnt illegal to fly in the avoid curve you know! I would mind my own business.

[Tru North]

Any idea what was being discussed in the cockpit? What makes you think it was a student? PPL CPL student?

It is an 'avoid' curve after all, not a 'never ever fly in here' curve.

I'm sure there will have been a good reason. As for whether students should be told the dangers, they are as far as I remember, though normally by their instructors.



TN

[SilsoeSid]

..pirouettes being performed down wind..

Yea, but only for half the time, right !

[Whirlygig]

Sounds like vertical take-offs and landings with downwind quick stop practice. Not "so-called exercises" but legitimate exercises.

Cheers

Whirls

[SilsoeSid]

Heliblob, did you eventually get your CPL and FI tickets?

[Arm out the window]

Downwind quickstops sound a bit dodgy, sorry Whirls.
Unless you mean the flare and turn (or turn and flare) type that start downwind and leave you rolling out into wind to terminate.

[Whirlygig]

That's exactly what I mean - I think maybe there are terminology differences in the colonies. :)

Cheers

Whirls

[Helinut]

Isn't it interesting how the choice of words makes such a difference and reveals the intentions of the author.

Heliblob uses the word "danger" because he thinks the risk is too large. If you replaced "the danger they are in "with the risks they are exposed to" it becomes much less dramatic and emotive.

Most activities and certainly those in aviation incur risks, but they are more or less balanced by some benefit. Becoming a pilot involves learning to manage those risks. One of the classic risks that comes up for discussion so often is the question of engine failure, especially in a single engine helicopter. In my view its role is over-emphasised - just take a look at the accident stats.

Most national aviation authorities are pre-occupied with engine failure. Perhaps in commercial air transport operations there is a case for this, because other risks should have been managed so that they are (or should be) well-controlled. However, in private operations pilots are permitted to operate in the avoid curve. Not quite all risk has been regulated away and there is a utility value to being there occasionally. If it is permissible to operate privately in that area, exposed to that risk, then surely it is appropriate for a student to be taught about these manoeuvres. After all, they are in the syllabus.

However, if it was me I would spend the least amount of time exposed that I could. This is both to manage the risks of the particular flight and also to teach the student about managing the risk. Example is such an important thing for a student. Don't sit in the high hover to debrief, but complete the manoeuvre down to a normal hover level, before debriefing. Professional helicopters minimise risk and only incur risk where it is necessary for the task. Some pilots positively like risk, but IMHO NOT professional ones. Perhaps that is one of things that distinguishes truly professional pilots (rather than just those with a commercial licence).

Heliblob does not tell us enough to know whether what the instructor was doing was reasonable. His suggestion about a third party getting involved sounds premature to me, putting it politely.

[Arm out the window]

That's exactly what I mean - I think maybe there are terminology differences in the colonies

Must be! It's all to do with Coriolis working in the other direction down here...

Sorry, I thought you were talking about something that started and finished pointing downwind, which I hope isn't what Heliblob's been seeing.

[Cylinder Head]

Sure, the CFI or Head of Training is the one is responsible for what goes on, and the one who should decide whether a word in the shell-like of the instructor/pilot is necessary. Not having seen the manoeuvres, I couldn't comment whether they were "dangerous" or risky. It would depend on who was on board, what level of experience they have and what the objective of the flight was. If it was PPL training, Ex 23 Advanced take offs and landings / Ex 21 Quickstops, it might have been justified - whether they were performed minimising time in the avoid curve is another question.

Pirouettes are an exception - not part of the syllabus and not easy to justify why exactly you were doing them "at the time when the engine failed Your Honour" - except to say that they are fun and sell PPL training quite well. Hands up any instructor who has never done one just for the fun of it! They can also be a demonstration of how tail rotor thrust affects power available and therefore why they can be a dangerous thing to do.

Next question is, if this were a trial lesson, are those sort of manoeuvres that the punter has signed up for? Probably not, I've changed my mind over the years and cut out things like EOL's from the T/L format. They used to be almost standard, but the punter has signed up for "air experience" not simulated emergency training.

The avoid curve is just that - to be avoided if possible, but if we always followed the recommended take off profile, we might as well fly planks and only ever operate airfield to airfield.

My advice would be, unless there is a reason to be in the avoid curve, stay out of it! If you do have to go into it, minimise the time that you are exposed.

Nevertheless, pilots have a duty to share safety concerns, so talk to the pilot involved and find out what they were doing and why. If such behaviour is habitual and unjustified, then you may want to make sure that their CFI/ HoT is aware of your concerns.

I know of 2 instructors who became more and more cavalier until they had accidents. In both cases the worsening trend went unreported to the CFI until it was too late and it is a matter of regret that concerns were not raised earlier that may have avoided 2 needless deaths.

[foxmead]

Helinut
Thankfully a common sense answer / explanation to this thread, enough said.

[cladosporangium]

I have witnessed so many R22/R44's hovering, or hover-taxiing more than one rotor diameter from the ground, that I was beginning to think that it was normal practice!
So many I've lost count, (so it must be more than ten).

I must agree that engine failures are uncommon, so perhaps instructors are flying a bit further from the ground to give them more reaction time when "Bloggs" mishandles it.

This then leads to the student thinking it is normal to be this far from the ground.

Which then carries-over into their personal flying practice.

Just a thought.....

Feel-free to discuss.

[Crack On]

Heliblobbbbbb,

Me thinks u ought to go out more, it's an avoid curve not a never curve!

How do you know what was being said in the cockpit and moreover, if you were so incensed that you seek to stir it up on here, why not go and see the instructor after the event and ask, instead of going home and jumping on the computer.....it might be quite informative!

Booom.

[dammyneckhurts]

Hey Blob,

Any chance they were doing the initial practice for sling/longline training?

[Shawn Coyle]

Just try a hovering autorotation from 10' AGL with a slight delay from simulating the failure till raising the collective (and only raising the collective) to cure you from ever, ever, ever hovering above that height for more than the briefest time.
It's one thing to hover at more than 10' AGL with full knowledge of the consequences and with good reason for being there, and completely another thing to do with and not know what can happen.

The reason for the only raising the collective, as opposed to the standard training technique of smartly down with the collective followed by an almighty pull, is that nearly everyone who's ever had an engine failure in the hover has said that it all happened so quickly that all they had time to do was pull up on the collective. Good reason why the HV low hover test point is required to be demonstrated that way.

[topendtorque]

I always like to see blogs check his keys t's and P's prior to every lift off.

why's that? comes the innocent q.

well ol' mate tha's cos when you walk in the hangar carrying the tail boom over your shoulder, with the explanation that the magnetos failed on take off. I will say wrong - dolt - they failed cos you failed to check em - eh!

oh yes, they can see the logic of that and nod wisely, oh so wisely.

but you see they weren't taught to do that as a young dog, so they don't do they, even on the next take off, often they won't.

so well, we're doing vertical take off's from confined areas, set the power slowly, if it climbs, if it don't chuck of some weight and how much weight equates to how much power an' how much power more than hoge is reqd to climb vertically, all that sort of thing and then.

we might even practice a benign abort procedure or two from about ten feet or so and sure enough they ain't checkin' them damm thaings afors take off.

then i just suddenly switch one magneto off, but as Shawn Coyle says I never ever in the R22 do that above 10 ft skid height. just in case the other one also fails.

From then on as you can imagine, blogs usually thinks about the checks, because at that point in time I always ask did he also do a fuel drain check before each and every start.

the motor will keep running won't it blogs? well has it got clean fuel or hasn't it?

well why don't we go ahead land, get out and check cos I watched when you started up an' you did not check it. Oh disturbed the routine again i have.!

[puntosaurus]

Heliblob raises an interesting point, which I have pondered on and been asked about in the past.

Teaching downwind quickstops is part of the syllabus that is courting danger from the avoid curve perspective, yet seems to have almost no relevance to PPL flying. Of course in its flare and turn variety it's very handy for getting into a hot landing site for the military, but why are we doing this with PPLs ?

I do think most students appreciate that the training course will put them at somewhat more risk than regular flying, but this one aspect seems a little gratuitous to me.

PS. don't get me wrong, I love doing them and teaching them, but I can't really see the risk reward equation for a PPL.

[Arm out the window]

Puntosaurus, I reckon downwind quickstops are relevant and should be taught, with the following points kept in mind:

1. Many helicopter pilots go on to do jobs that require low flying (mustering, ag, filming etc) where this kind of manoueuvering is required, and learning the basics early is to my mind better than getting them as an 'add-on' later.

2. During the sequences, when you're flying downwind you have airspeed on your side. Once the speed reduction is commenced, you're flaring and turning into wind. The collective is partially lowered, so you're not in the high power part of the avoid curve as you would be on takeoff at the same height AGL, plus you have a lot of flare effect on your side.

3. Quickstops are a great judgement/skills exercise, a chance for students to get to know their aircraft's capabilities (and their own) without being silly about it. They fall into the worthwhile calculated risk category, as I see it.

[puntosaurus]

Sounds like a plausible argument for putting them in the CPL course, but not the PPL.

I can talk myself into the into wind quickstop as a great exercise in managing the machine close to the ground, but downwind seems like a bridge too far.

I'm pretty sure there would be tears before bedtime if I had an engine failure in an R22 from 50kt downwind at 30-50ft.

[Arm out the window]

Yeah, fair cop - CPL is more appropriate.

[MartinCh]

100ft AGL sustained hover in R22, two up, even with lower fuel left? Brrrr. No thanks.

[JimBall]

Heliblob: your brain wiring worries me.

Humans constantly evaluate risk. Some of them choose to ignore the warnings and end up as dead as the superbike rider I saw in bits down a motorway recently, having lost a battle with a truck.

But most of the ones who step into a helicopter for one-on-one instruction are constantly evaluated as a risk by their instructor. That instructor, normally, would like to continue life unimpeded by sticks, wheelchairs or coffins.

I used to be a racing instructor. This is an activity which carries immense risk because driving really attracts muppets who can't. After a while I could evaluate the "pupil" within 30 seconds of meeting them - and adjust our session accordingly.

Your question is redundant and an insult to the many good & excellent helicopter instructors.

[Whirlygig]

your brain wiring worries meAnd me .... been registered for 5 years, only three posts. He/she starts a thread with the aim of courting controversy but then does not log in since starting it.

Cheers

Whirls

[topendtorque]

but then does not log in since starting it.




what else are you watching about us Whirls?

cheers tet

[Whirlygig]

TET, ... every move you make, every step you take.... :E

Cheers

Whirls

[Helinut]

Normal hover height during instruction in an R22 is an interesting one. Its a long time since I flew the R22, but I used to be (slightly) criticised in general discussions with other instructors for hovering at, and requesting that students hover at the AFM recommended hover height (can't remember what it was any more).

Other instructors used to remark how low my students hovered. Their argument was that with a low time student the risk of them touching the ground going sideways was a greater risk than being a bit high, in the event of an engine failure in the hover.

Any thoughts?

[HeliTester]

Helibob seems to be trapped in the politically correct mode of believing that we have to protect everyone from everything that could possibly go wrong during anything we ever do. Some examples of dumb warning labels….Nytol Sleep Aid: Warning, May cause drowsiness; Bread Pudding: Warning, product will be hot after heating; Pepper Spray: Warning, Never aim at your own eyes; and the list goes on.

Foxmead acknowledged Helinut’s common sense answer that I thought would have ended this thread. To quote Helinut, “Most activities and certainly those in aviation incur risks, but they are more or less balanced by some benefit. Becoming a pilot involves learning to manage those risks.” Bottom line, operation within the H-V avoid area is prohibited by law only if the H-V curve is given in Part 1 of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual.

[topendtorque]

every move you make, every step you take


walll I'll just go ahead and try to be more careful where I put my ruddy great clodhoppers down.
cheers tet

[Whirlygig]

tet, that's rather taken the poetry out of Sting's lyrics. :{

Cheers

Whirls

[John R81]

If Google Earth was "real time" it would make stalking so much more convenient, don't you think Whirls?

[topendtorque]

whirls,
i hope it's not Jim Morrison's 'broken strings' of which you speak, as I find myself on the boards early like a very young parent but now wondering
in like fashion if we will survive and get 'to hold onto still' our live-ex cattle ban over here.
tet.

for punto and aotw,
I don't think it is a problem teaching them to ppl's. no one says you have to do them at fifty feet, why not above 1,000 feet. It's an excellent environment to disoriente your pupil and thus give them a far more comprehensive set of tools to ward off the evils sometime later.

let's say we are doing rate one turns, left right, roll out on this or that heading, continue rate one left etc. Now, we have done quick stops? yes, -nods wisely -, thank god remembered that bit.
Now continue turns left right, now lets roll out into a gentle quick stop on heading 160 say. OK very good now don't forget where the wind is from, what'd yer say 150? ah yes, that's all good, lets continue the lesson for a few minutes but now we'll tighten it up maintaining steep turns for two or three orbits this spot, each direction and again - and again more steep turns left right, again, now (when they're quite confused) please roll out into a fairly hard quick stop on to 330. Get's em every time.
If they learn how to recover from unusual attitudes at that early stage it's so much safer for them later, don't you think?

nothing unusual about that. also makes it much easier for them to later pick up the rudiments of handling for a low level rating specifically for mustering.

Of particular import is the fact that they must never be turning the aircraft about its axis but still travelling downwind and flaring - trying to decrease airspeed.
doing the quickstop out of a sustained steep turn teaches the bit about ONLY initiating the flare as the nose has entered the quarter of - into wind

it might have saved a certain pilot from being alarmingly disorientated at Port Phillip Bay during a photo mission in a R44 a couple of years ago when she pretty much lost it, all because she hadn't been led through such easy recovery type exercises I would suggest.

all you have to do to intiate such is to get them to zoom climb with the same wind in the 330 direction to come to a hover at say 1500 feet whilst talking to them in such a fashion that their attention is totally diverted at the critical moment when they are supposed to be applying power. gets experienced pilots nearly every time. wallll - the first time that is.

regards tet

[puntosaurus]

HaHaHa. Very good ! We could get them to do it under the hood to add an extra frisson of excitement !

[hihover]

Punto - scoff if you wish, but I see the makings of a whole new exercise here. I think I'll call it the DownwindZoomQuickPFL. All we do is add a PFL to the end of the previous exercise and Bob's yer uncle. I am also thinking that it could even be used to further assess judgement by using it in bad weather, see if the little buggers know what a cloudbase looks like.

Tam

[topendtorque]

when they get more advanced in their training they will cop an engine failure anywhere in that, at any height, but the ones who have got to the danger experience level of between 800 and 1200 hours and who have demonstrated a reckless disregard for the position of their tail close to the ground, definately will cop a full on T/R failure exercise at any time the aircraft airspeed reaches zero, but never from below 1500 AGL.

oh and don't have any loose articles laying around before you throw in the pedal, and don't for gods sake ever pull it on with a student until you are well practised in what will happen yourself.

if the victims are real smart arses then they will cop it first before we go through the routine t/r failure in the hover bit.

[21lefthand]

Isnt it the other way round that everyone thinks that single engined helicopters fall out of the sky when the engine fails, until your instructer teaches you about the avoid curve and that there are some positions above five feet off the ground where you stand a reasonable chance of coming back to earth in one piece ?

[Ascend Charlie]

Helinut,

It seems you are an advocate of hovering low "in case the engine fails."

Listen to Frank Robinson - he tells people that hovering higher is safer than hovering lower. He has never lost a helicopter from an engine failure while hovering higher, but there are hundreds of losses from people hovering too low, catching a skid on the ground and rolling over.:eek:

Play the odds: the chances of an engine failure in the high hover are very low, but the chance of stuffing up a low hover (with engine running) are very high.

[Helinut]

AC,

I think you summarise the risk balance well. How high is high enough though?

[Paul Cantrell]

I think you summarise the risk balance well. How high is high enough though?


Frank says 5.

When I learned, we were all taught to hover at 3. Then Frank said 5 so I did 5. Then I taught for a while in an A model Enstrom so it was 4 inches ;)

Seriously, I think it depends on the machine. I don't like being much higher than 5 in the R22 because you're getting into bend-the-skids territory if she quits. In the R44 10-12 doesn't worry me, but I still teach 5 feet (but we probably start a little higher with a brand new student and work our way down to 5!).

I've always heard you usually get a little warning when a piston engine is going to quit (except when you run it out of fuel). Do people agree? Do most piston engine mechanical failures happen with some preceding bad noises that would hint it's time to get it back to a lower altitude?

The only engine failure I've had was preceded by a good 30 seconds of banging before the broken connecting rod finally brought it all to a (blessed) stop.

Paul