IR Test and IFR Flying W/O Autopilot

[Shaili]

My query is - if a helicopter is making an instrument approach and suffers autopilot failure, is it permitted to continue with a "manual" approach and land or is it mandatory to abandon the IF procedure and return to visual flying. Further, in case the weather is below VMC at the airport, does it entail diversion to another airport?

Could someone enlighten me on the rule position of FAA, JAA and CAA about multi-engine helicopter transport operations (with pax) without autopilot.

Any changes in rule position for offshore operations (Cat A Class 1 Performance) ?

Thanks

[drakkar]

Refering to the EC 225's FLM, in case of losing one APM; continue the flight (no limitations), in case of losing both APM : Limit duration of flight, leave IMC ASAP. To answer to your query, the only way to leave IMC quickly and safely is to continue the IFR approach, manually. IF your destination is below minimas, apply the normal rules.
Every operator has a MEL based on the Eurocopter MMEL, so the answer about offshore operations is certainly in this document.
Cheers

[JimL]

If there is a failure in flight then the pilot must apply the flight manual abnormal/emergency procedures and comply with the Rules of the Air.

Descent below the MSA can only be achieved in accordance with a let-down procedure (be that in the patterns or, if there is one for offshore, an en-route descent). Clearly, if there is a failure on the approach, the safest action is to complete the approach.

The MEL applies only for dispatch - once airborne, the pilot has to deal with failures as they occur.

Jim

[212man]

The MEL applies only for dispatch - once airborne, the pilot has to deal with failures as they occur

Ah shucks, now you're confusing us with airmanship ideas! Surely there's a rule somewhere?

[WIGYCIWYT]

As an S61 driver can someone explain what this Autopilot thingummy is? Are you suggesting I shouldn’t have been doing all that OEI IFR flying without one...if so I must go and complain to Ops immediately and stop having to run up a sweat each IR renewal.

[212man]

It's that thing that stops you getting into a divergent Dutch roll every time you use the pedals and collective :ok:

[Gomer Pylot]

Personally, if the autopilot fails I'm going to do the best I can to land as soon as I can, and if that means just continuing an approach to MDA/DA, that's what I'm going to do. That seems to me to be the safest thing, regardless of the regulations. In the US, for most helicopters equipped with an autopilot/flight director, a failure just requires taking manual control, and is at least simulated on most checkrides. At least one approach had to be flown without the autopilot on any PIC checkride I've ever taken. It's not an emergency, it's just an annoyance, and the autopilot has to be disconnected before landing anyway.

[rjsquirrel]

Gomer is right, just continue and land. The autopilot (a 61 has one, BTW, it just has no nav tracking modes) makes it easier, but with hundreds of hours in non-autopilot helos on actual or simulated instruments, I can assure you the autopilot is a great help, but few helos have crashed because of their stability, virtually all crashes are the result of poor pilot judgement - weather, fuel, wind, terrain, etc.

[Helinut]

Shaili, I think you may be mixing up a few different things with your question.

The rules vary depending upon various things: whose rules you are operating under, but also whether you are single or two crew. Also are you talking about CAT. I guess you are probably looking at single crew.

You also mention the IR test; this is another special case. When I did my initial test (single crew), you did not use the A/P at all, although it had to be operational on departure. It usually "failed" at some point in the test! I recall someone saying that the A/P may be used for some parts of the IR test these days, but that is just a filthy rumour.

[WIGYCIWYT]

Without wishing to get too pedantic or serious, I would argue the S61 has an “autostab" rather than an autopilot, since it won’t actually ‘fly’ anything for you. Much more complicated in something like the 365 which could pretty much fly the whole trip for you from the hover....now that is an autopilot.

Of late there seems to have been much more emphasis on ensuring candidates in an IR can functionally use the Autopilot (programming the hold, for instance) and the trend from the CAA tends to be leaning towards using your aircraft’s kit to it’s maximum capacity...... as long as you can still do the full manual ILS (no Flight Director) which is, of course, my starting point!:uhoh:

[TipCap]

One of the S61N's I flew had an autopilot. LN 400/450 but that was a long time ago :ok:

John

[Paul Cantrell]

rjsquirrel:

but with hundreds of hours in non-autopilot helos on actual or simulated instruments, I can assure you the autopilot is a great help, but few helos have crashed because of their stability


Isn't the Bell 222 the only non-autopilot helicopter certified for SPIFR (at least, in the US)? What type were you flying actual without an autopilot? Or was there another crewmember (which I would argue isn't the same thing).

I hand fly all IMC approaches so it's not really a big deal. If I was in cruise, own navigation, then the workload has gone up substantially and I'd be definitely asking ATC for all the help I can get.

One very senior helicopter pilot friend recommends that if you haven't already briefed the approach and you lose the autopilot SPIFR, you should declare an emergency and have ATC brief the approach rather than risk vertigo looking down at the plate.

As others pointed out, once you're on the approach most of the time the best exit from IMC is to complete the approach.

[rjsquirrel]

Paul,
The real answer lies in the handling qualities of your helo without electronic stability. Most helos are pretty decent at moderate speed with no artificial stability, even though they are a long way from certifiable in IMC. For example, I have many hours in the UH-1, S-76, H-34 and OH-13 on simulated or actual instruments with no stability, so that relatively constant monitoring is needed, but these aircraft are a long, long way from declaring an emergency under such conditions.
I wonder where we are going in pilot training if folks are being told that they are near death if their stability fails!

[Gomer Pylot]

I learned to fly instruments in a TH-13, with no stability augmentation at all, and while I wasn't actually single-pilot, I may as well have been, because the instructor in the left seat wasn't helping, only observing and occasionally criticizing, sometimes loudly. We had to plan and fly the approach alone, every time, as well as plan and fly holding, etc. Flying instruments in the UH1 was a piece of cake after that, being more stable and having someone to actually help in the other seat. It doesn't take that much time looking at the approach plate if you're used to it and know what information you need at the moment, and where it is on the plate. Helicopter SPIFR isn't easy, but it's certainly not impossible.

[Shaili]

Thanks Drakkar !

[Shaili]

Thanks to all for their views and inputs. The reason I raised this query was rooted in my belief that we are not authorised to fly IFR in case autopilot (AP) fails (both channels NA). I trust this is the case with all airliners. If AP fails the IFR is required to be discontinued and it is mandatory to go VFR for all revenue flights with passengers. This is for the safety of passengers as manual handling of controls w/o AP is considered unsafe in IMC.

Could someone pl confirm or refute this belief of mine.

Further, if my this belief is true, could someone tell me if airline pilots undergo IR tests with AP fully OFF ! In other words, would an airliner continue with a precision / non-precision approach manually (and go-around and make another approach, if required) or abandon the approach and initiate go-around manually, followed by diversion to an airfield for VFR landing.

Thanks
S

[JimL]

Shaili,

You haven't listened to what has been said. Your questions have already been answered.

Is it just me or do others see PPRune being used just as a confirmation of (visceral) belief - i.e. 'confirmation bias'.

Jim

[Paul Cantrell]

Hey Gomer...

It doesn't take that much time looking at the approach plate if you're used to it and know what information you need at the moment, and where it is on the plate. Helicopter SPIFR isn't easy, but it's certainly not impossible.

I never said SPIFR was impossible, I didn't even say SPIFR after you've lost the autopilot was impossible. But briefing an approach that requires a more complicated setup or en-route when not radar vectors; I said that I would ask ATC for as much help as possible in those cases.

I don't know about the kind of IFR flying you do, but 95% of the flights I do IFR are fairly short range trips (I don't carry that much fuel!) so most of them are radar vectors most of the way, maybe direct to one fix and then it's time for the approach. I wouldn't much notice the difference on that sort of a trip if I lost the autopilot because I try to hand fly as much as possible anyway (for currency). And I almost always hand fly the approach and usually even while I'm briefing the approach unless it's an unusual one. So, on those flights losing the autopilot would be a non-issue.

When I tend to need the autopilot is on those 5% of the trips which involve own navigation on a route I'm not familiar with. I find re-folding the enroute chart quite difficult to do: VMC I regularly fly with my knees and have no issues, but IMC I find that much more difficult to do. In the SPIFR Bell 206L3 I fly, when the autopilot is off I only have 1-2 seconds hands-off-stick before I'm seeing a significant attitude change. So, I can still do the tasks, but they take a LOT longer because I have to break them down into lots of little subtasks so I can keep my scan going. That's tough when it gets busy.

The guy I mentioned in my previous post flew a Bell 222 SPIFR and it was not equipped with an autopilot. In any case, ALL the pilots who flew that aircraft complained about the high workload, and that in an aircraft that was certified that way because it was supposedly so stable! His concern about people briefing the approach without the autopilot is that if they have the plate on their kneeboard, and they're trying to read the plate but also keep their scan going, is that they're going to induce vertigo by moving their head up and down. I think that's a legitimate concern.

My personal solution is that I don't attach my approach plates to my kneeboard (I use NOS books). When I need to refer to the plate, I bring the plate up next to my attitude indicator so I can read the plate and scan the gauges with just eyeball movements, and not head motions. Still, pretty inconvenient when you're reading and tuning frequencies.

In any case, I'll stand by my statement that at least for ME, losing the autopilot enroute when own navigation is a significant work load increase, and I'll ask ATC for as much help as they can give me.

And really, why wouldn't you want to ask for help in that case?

What is an IFR flight in the Gulf to/from offshore destinations like? Mostly RV? How complicated is the routing typically? How much SPIFR do they do and what's the typical aircraft used SPIFR down there? How much of the flight are you in radar contact? Just curious...

Paul

[Gomer Pylot]

I don't disagree that losing the autopilot SPIFR is a significant workload increase. It certainly is, and if you want to declare an emergency, that's certainly a choice you can make. Everyone has a different level of comfort, and a different way of doing things.

There is essentially no SPIFR in the GOM. Some Part 91 operators might do it, but I don't know of any. IFR is done in transport category aircraft with two pilots. I haven't flown SPIFR in a very long time, other than practice in VMC.

[Paul Cantrell]

Gomer,

That's pretty interesting that there is no SPIFR there. A very conservative decision. Want to conjecture why that is the case?

Paul

[Gomer Pylot]

No need for it. Larger aircraft, with 10 or more seats, must have 2 pilots regardless of IFR/VFR. They're the only ones certified for IFR. Small ships have no stability augmentation and no aux generator, so they aren't IFR capable. It would cost more than it's worth to get them certified. Part 135 is much more conservative than Part 91.

[Shaili]

Sorry Jim ! I seem to have offended you !!
S