AAIB January 2017

[John R81]

Two helicopter reports:


G-RFUN: R44 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58496999ed915d0aeb000060/Robinson_R44_Raven_G-RFUN_01-17.pdf)
"The helicopter took off at close to its maximum weight. It then flew to a hilly area, where the pilot made a downwind approach, with full carburettor heat applied, to an Out-of-Ground-Effect (OGE) hover. The manufacturer’s performance figures show this to be outside the declared flight envelope of the helicopter. The helicopter was unable to sustain the hover and descended, probably entering a vortex ring state, before it landed heavily and rolled onto its side. The occupants escaped from the aircraft with one passenger sustaining a minor injury."


G-SAIG and a Spitfire (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/584969dc40f0b60e4c000071/Robinson_R44_II_G-SAIG_Spitfire_IXT_G-CCCA_01-17.pdf)
"The Robinson R44 helicopter hover taxied across Runway 28 as the Spitfire was completing its landing roll. The propeller of the Spitfire contacted the empennage of the helicopter but neither pilot was aware there had been contact, although a bump was felt in the R44. The helicopter returned to the apron for an inspection, where damage to its empennage and tail rotor guard was discovered"

[Camp Freddie]

Actually regarding the first accident it's hard to know where to start, The real reason for this type of accident (not necessarily this one) is often much more complex than it first seems, It is in keeping with a trend I have noticed in the last 15 years for new private pilots (especially those in their 40's of the business man variety) to not know (or care) about RFM limits, who will do just enough to get a licence (and the subsequent PC's) but basically they are a law unto themselves with very little regard to good airmanship (TEM), actually I am surprised there aren't more of this type of accident, the FI's in my experience try very hard to promote good standards but are fighting a losing battle.

[Hughes500]

CF

Have to disagree with you there ! From what I see the standard of training in this country is woeful. That is not to blame the instructors but the system where the inexperienced are asked to train the new generation.:ugh: How many R44 instructors for instance take the machine out at PPLH learning stage with the heli at close to MAUW ?
If you look or instance at the military system you don't see any junior pilots with no experience instructing !

[Camp Freddie]

Military vs Civilian again, I didn't start it - boring:bored:

[GipsyMagpie]

I'd say the problem is that the private pilots receive no supervision after they get their licence in a similar fashion to private drivers. Yes you have an LPC per annum but no one authorizes your sorties and provides a sanity check. sadly there is no practical way of bringing that in, particularly if the pilot in question doesn't want it and owns their own aircraft. So sad to see machine lost (bit surprised the occupants got away with it)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If you look or instance [sic] at the military system you don't see any junior pilots with no experience instructing !Not in the rotary world anyway. The FJ stream do it, but it works because the creamies only teach students to fly a trainer in a very limited and scripted set of manoeuvres.

The helicopter pilot reported that he had stopped to look for traffic and made a radio call before crossing to the north side. He did not hear any other traffic on the frequency. As he crossed Runway 28, he heard a “whooshing” noise but did not feel any contact. He concluded that he had not seen the other aircraft because he was looking for aircraft on approach and not on the ground.
Is this an early April Fool? Do these people really exist? And there appears to be inconsistency about whether or not the R44 occupants (I can't bring myself to call them pilots) felt a bump or not.

[[email protected]]

So we seem to be condoning a poorly functioning system with low-time, inexperienced instructors giving a very varied quality of instruction to new pilots (the blind being led by the partially sighted), a complete lack of mandated post-graduate training or checking - is this some bizarre race to the bottom of the aviation barrel?

[Bell_ringer]

Sorry to interupt the dump on ppl's party.
Weight and balance, aircraft performance and safe operation (avoiding downwind landings when heavy) are a basic skill,

Any instructor would hammer this In and it is an extremely basic part of flight planning.

Stupidity is not limited to ppl's it is frequently shown by professional pilots also.

With 80-odd hours and only flying 1 hour in 3 months you can only expect a problem. There is no way to remain current like that. Those hours should be spent flying dual to reinforce the skills until such a time the pilot is flying often enough to be safe.
What are UK regs about currency? X number of hours and takeoff/landings?

A system can't route out stupidity nor can the instructor be responsible for what a pilot does or doesn't do after training.

[Hughes500]

CF

Nothing to do with mil v civilian it is an example of how it should be done, not what we have ended up with, everything driven by money. Yes I agree that there are good young instructors, but teaching people to fly is not just following Lessons 1 to 30 in a regimented way. It is about teaching airmanship ( in my day ) now called threat and error management, really just common sense ! How can you expect an junior instructor who has done nothing else other than regimented lessons and a load of trial lessons pass this wealth of knowledge on ? We have ended up in the classic catch 22 situation.

[helicopter-redeye]

I had no idea you could shoot wild boars in the Peak District. This was possibly the most unexpected part of the report.

[wallism]

So, just to be clear, is it agreed then? All of us PPLs (who haven't crashed or aren't dead yet) should just call it quits and leave the skies clear for you salaried greater mortals to occupy in complete safety. I believe that I was taught to fly by one of the best who has undoubtedly subsequently signed off many of your licenses. I was one of "those in their 40's of the business man variety" who perhaps chose that career path in order to fund my love of flying. I consider training and currency a serious matter in much the same way as salaried pilots do but voluntarily and at my own expense. As for the comment about occupants, not pilots of an R44, your attitude and ignorance knows absolutely no bounds.

[Hughes500]

Wallism

Really pleased you take it seriously, unfortunately I fear you are in the minority of owners from what I see an an examiner !
How many gotcha's do you want ? over MAUW, downwind landing, vertical take off and hovering at 70 ft, hopefully no instructor teaches these ????

[wallism]

I totally agree, he lined them all up and I'm sure that no one taught him to do that.

[Bell_ringer]

Any training, and yep it's the same training everyone goes through irrespective of how they intend to fly, has checks and balances from other instructors (hopefully more senior) through to the person signing off the test.

So if we are producing rubbish pilots then you are saying the entire training system is broken, the same system that will produce commercial pilots.

There are cowboys in all shapes, sizes and licenses.

There are plenty of recreational pilots that take the process extremely seriously and from what I've seen often have more air-time and experience than the average lower hour comm pilot so let's not paint an entire group with one or two accidents.

Overall you'd find the majority of accidents feature higher qualified pilots than it does the more casual flier.

Someone determined not to do proper planning and to operate beyond their own and the machine's limits is not a reflection on who taught them but a serious flaw with the individual behind the controls.

[ShyTorque]

Pilot’s assessment of cause
The pilot reported he did not see or feel anything unusual in entering the hover, but that
the aircraft lost power. When asked why he had used full carburettor heat, the pilot stated
he had been taught “you can never have too much carb heat”. He was unaware that
carburettor heat had an adverse effect on the aircraft’s performance.

Strewth! Who taught him about aero engines (or rather, who didn't)?

[aa777888]

Throwing in another $.02 into the discussion as a "40ish businessman" (actually a bit older :E): one must also question student motivation. When I finished my PP-ASEL training and passed that checkride, I felt pretty confident in my ability to fly from paved runway to paved runway. No fuss, no muss, just be careful of the weather and aircraft performance. When I finished my PP-H and passed the checkride I felt like I had merely obtained a license to go out and get killed. And, to be VERY clear, this is after obtaining what I felt was excellent instruction. There is just so much more complexity to helicopter flying (preaching to the choir, no doubt), especially if it extends beyond mere paved runway to paved runway operations, that it can't be economically contained in the civilian PP syllabus.

As a result of my continued badgering of the outstanding school that I am lucky to be associated with ("Let's go do some 'challenging' confined space, let's go fly in the snow, etc.") if I would only get off my posterior and take the written I'd be ready for the commercial checkride.

Sadly it would appear that I might be the exception rather than the norm amongst the "40ish businessman" class (with all due respect to other exceptions!) And yet I am only now becoming confident that I might survive the next 100 hours. Not because I didn't pass the PP checkride with flying colors, but because doing so is probably not enough for real world helicopter operations.

[Camp Freddie]

The fact that confined / restricted areas aren't actually part of the Proficiency check test schedule doesn't help people much get better at them unless they seek improvement themselves with some extra training.

I know you could test it under 2.7 landings (various profiles) but you don't have to and most people don't as far as I can see

[Two's in]

It has all the makings of one of those Aircraft Accident scenarios where you have to identify all the potential contributing factors. I was always taught that you should expect a spirited attempt to kill yourself due to a mixture of over-confidence and lack of imagination around 100 hours (check that box), 500 hours, and 1,000 hours.

a. Total of 87 Hours - 9 on type.
b. Total of 3 Friends in the cabin.
c. "Approximately 15 minutes later the helicopter arrived at a boar shooting ground where the pilot intended to hover, so they could wave at some friends."
d. Overweight aircraft and underweight estimating.
e. "made a downwind approach, with full carburetor heat applied, to an Out-of- Ground-Effect (OGE) hover."
f. "outside the declared flight envelope of the helicopter."

[Bell_ringer]

With the reference to carb heat he was then also not flying a Raven 2 (fuel injected) so even less room for error.

Simple tools like ibal and Gyronimo make flight planning easy, there's no excuse really.

Being hot and high around these parts, power management is an essential part of training.
Confined operations are all a standard part of training and checks.
If you aren't going to be taught (and practice) them you may as well go fly a stuck wing instead.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

occupants, not pilots of an R44, your attitude and ignorance knows absolutely no bounds


By sticking up for two numpties who managed to blunder onto an active runway without noticing the aircraft on finals (despite said aircraft making R/T calls in the usual places), and then managed to bump into the other aircraft without even realizing, I fear that the moral high ground you so proudly occupy is more mole-hill than Mount Everest...

[John R81]

As a PPL(H) businessman (but one who takes additional training sorties every year, the most recent being this month due to no stick time in December).


I think for the UK Bell Ringer makes a point that resonates for me. In the UK we are rarely hot or high (yes, it is possible but rare). I can see that it is possible to both fail to appreciate the practical application of what you are taught about their impact on performance, or "forget" as you rarely apply the theory. Also, flying mainly solo or two-up in a machine with significant excess power / performance for that weight can also lead to sloppy standards because you don't get punished for your errors. Put those together, and take a trip at MAUW without adequate planning and you can see where that trip will end ........ far short of the planned destination.


I am fairly sure that I don't agree with the "standards of instructor in the UK" complaint; but that is based on my personal experience.

[FlimsyFan]

Interesting debate. I'm another businessman / pilot in the danger zone of 41yo and 102hrs rotary, and probably like all the others consider myself conscientious, cautious and safety minded. I had the luxury of being able to employ my instructor (1200 hrs TT), whom I thought was excellent in terms of flight skills and airmanship, on a full-time basis to fly our company heli when required.

I think one thing that is at issue with businessmen flying is the transition from business head to pilot head. There are definitely occasions after a bruising meeting, where the mindset is not suitable for immediately taking to the skies. Our pilot almost always comes along on this type of trip, sits in the left seat and gives me the luxury of deciding how much of the workload I want.

He also treats each trip as further instruction, and as my confidence in handling the machine increases, he increases the challenges accordingly ("Practice Engine Failure - Go") etc. I know I'm really fortunate with this setup, but it is definitely giving me a focus to continue to learn.

There are, however, some PPLs who have approached me for SFH on our machine, and having flown with them, wouldn't let them loose on their own in a million years. I definitely agree that an hour every couple of months doesn't constitute currency in rotary, and for that reason alone, the really occasional recreational pilot is in my opinion always a greater risk.

FF

[[email protected]]

Flimsy - along with John R81 and others, you have shown that it is too easy to tar everyone with the same brush and make sweeping generalisations about both owners/pilots/businessmen and instructor competence.

You guys clearly have the professional approach to flying which seems to be sadly lacking from quite a few in your 'bracket'.

Not wanting to open the civ vs mil debate again but one of the great advantages we have in mil flying is the supervisory overview and strict currency/competency rules that are imposed on us by our regulators.

No doubt the spectres of cost/infringement of civil liberties/complexity etc would be raised in the event of trying to establish a similar structure for GA.

[[email protected]]

Perhaps part of the PPL course should emphasise the Darwinian nature of post-licence flying - just as with most things in life, if you don't prepare properly you will suffer the consequences. The emphasis should be on what those consequences are - injury or death - because of the very unforgiving nature of the ground/air interface.

Perhaps the CAA could commission some films/case studies/literature highlighting the potential pitfalls of poor continuity of flying coupled with low experience and make seminars to discuss these aspects mandatory for all licence holders.

Again, the mil mandate regular Flight Safety trg and Human Factors training to keep awareness high amongst the aircrew.

There is nothing like analysing other peoples f**kups to make you aware of your own potential to do the same.

ISTR there were voluntary seminars organised by members of this forum a few years ago - do they still happen?

[[email protected]]

Those are the ones - last dated 2008! This is what should be mandatory.

[[email protected]]

Perhaps some of the money we pay for licences, medicals and type ratings should be used for exactly that purpose rather than disappearing into the CAA's coffers.

[aa777888]

Flimsy - along with John R81 and others, you have shown that it is too easy to tar everyone with the same brush and make sweeping generalisations about both owners/pilots/businessmen and instructor competence.

Obviously the demographic for us 40ish types is a bit skewed in this thread. People who read and take part in the PPRuNe rotorheads discourse are probably more motivated than the average 40ish businessman pilot.

[Hughes500]

Alpha

Yes they are taught to do them when one HAS TO DO THEM But not all at the same time . Please tell me where you would wish to come to a high OGE hover at 70 ft down wind with an aircraft over MAUW or even close to MAUW and to cap it all apply full carb heat ??? Really !!!! anyone of my intructor's who taught that would be sacked.
Even in long lining which I do regularly, coming to a high hover at 50 to 150 ft at MAUW is acceptable because that is part of the job, but not downwind unless I want to end up in a smoking hole.
The real nub of the problem is the thought you could/should be doing this, as I said a lack of Airmanship or common sense, what was he taught or not as the case maybe !

[Cut or Paste]

A very interesting discussion. No comment about the "accidents".

Perhaps, as a start, all exams should to be invigilated at a CAA exam hall. Then there can be no "helpful invigilators/instructors" to overlook a lack of knowledge. A fail is a fail.

Perhaps, a more demanding test would be appropriate. Not: take off/hover taxi/turn/circuit/land etc but: here is a forest, where shall we land? kind of test. A real life decision making test. I could go on.

Anyway, the margins are small for these flight schools, I appreciate that; but the margins are also very small for the freelance flight instructors.

I say charge the students more and give them a structured training regime. Pass or fail, it's entirely up to them. Frankly, the triers will pass, and the arrogant will fail.

You don't see super cars for sale with a 50 quid margin. So, charge more! And the quality may, just maybe, improve........

It will never happen but, good evening anyway, I'm enjoying the comedy show.

:ok:

[[email protected]]

Trouble is, there are plenty of arrogant types with deep pockets who buy and crash supercars on a pretty regular basis.

[Cut or Paste]

Agreed crab@, and I know its sounds harsh, but I'm pleased when they do. Unfortunately they usually take innocent people with them.

Anyway, mine were only suggestions, I think the system as it is needs a complete shake up. The Syllabus is there, maybe there should be an enforced time period to let people absorb the knowledge before they can move on? Perhaps a series of progress checks?

Like I said it will never happen, but what do you think?

[chopjock]

Frankly, the triers will pass, and the arrogant will fail.

Don't confuse arrogance with incompetence!

[FlimsyFan]

I know there's many views centred on the (un) airworthiness of the Robbo product, but having attended their safety course in 2016, I think it is a great forum for building awareness.

As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).

For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I know there's many views centred on the (un) airworthiness of the Robbo product, but having attended their safety course in 2016, I think it is a great forum for building awareness.

As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).

For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums? Sounds eminently sensible. Neither of the incidents under discussion here was related to a flaw with the aircraft (and could have happened on any type). Both episodes stemmed from woeful ignorance in the seat-stick interface which a safety course might improve.

[[email protected]]

I think any safety course is better than no safety course and the Robinson one does have a good reputation.

Alpha - probably insurance premiums!

Cut or Paste - I'm not holding my breath waiting for any action by the authorities.

[HeliComparator]

Regarding G-RFUN ... Wow, what a load of pomposity on this thread! You can pass a driving test that shows you are barely competent to drive, buy a sports car, and crash it due to inexperience. Happens all the time. So what.


If you have newly obtained your helicopter licence and operate in an unsupervised environment, you likewise have a pretty good chance (relatively) of crashing. So what, that is the nature of private flying. Alternatively, we could make PPLs do a couple of thousand hours training prior to being awarded their licences. But guess what, there wouldn't be too many PPLs out there!


Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.


Edited to add that by "you" I mean a fair chunk of those participating in this thread, not just the person whose post preceded mine.

[FlimsyFan]

[QUOTE=HeliComparator;9646165]Regarding G-RFUN ... Wow, what a load of pomposity on this thread!



Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.

QUOTE]

Hello HC,

as a PPL with 100hrs, I'm the last to pontificate over someone else's misfortune. It is a fact that in this accident, it was quite a lengthy string of back-to-back no-nos that led to the final impact.

I don't think it is unreasonable to question either the standard of training given, or the level to which that training was interpreted and applied.

I totally agree that a new PPL is a major risk category for the reasons you state, but I still think any new pilot has a responsibility to himself and others to minimise that risk to the greatest possible extent.

Whether or not you think I'm pompous or arrogant for saying this, I don't think the pilot in question did so when he combined so many unfavourable conditions into a single flight.

[[email protected]]

Having a bad day Helicomparator?

You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.

No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.

Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.

[HeliComparator]

Having a bad day Helicomparator?

You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.

No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.

Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.
Yes, but only because of what I read on here!


Of course one can always strive to improve things but when that comes down to "lets not let those silly young people be instructors, lets only allow us terribly experienced, competent and lets face it, awfully clever people to be instructors." that just comes across as arrogant and stupid.


PPL standards, training and competency and ATPL standards are likely to be different. Get over it!


That said, I have encountered some pretty incompetent ATPLs and some pretty competent PPLs - there are always exceptions!

[500e]

alphanumeric Are you quite new to helicopters
Take the say £50 for instructor out then fuel, insurance for training, landing fees, finance, maintenance + other overheads there is not a lot left & that is if there is no unforeseen events, & there always is I have found :uhoh:
I think on going training "CPD" is a must for all of us we should all aspire to be as professional as possible.
Ongoing training can only be a good thing as Crab says.

[Fenestron8]

I totally agree the system is broken.

Mid-40's chap, PPL(H) gained, bought and owned a helicopter. Never had an accident but also realised within 2 seconds of getting outside of a concrete runway that I had NO CLUE.
Had many near misses and quit quickly before I killed myself and others..

PPL(H) does nothing to prepare a helicopter "pilot". If there was a facility that could offer "real life after PPL(H) training", I think everybody would be surprised at the up take. Maybe long hour FI's should be contacting hell owners that have low hours on the clocks of their machines....

Yes we are mid-40's, yes have deep pockets but that does not mean we don't want to fly safely!!! Darwin will always reward the idiots no matter how many hours they have...

[[email protected]]

"lets not let those silly young people be instructors, lets only allow us terribly experienced, competent and lets face it, awfully clever people to be instructors." if that is how you have interpreted what has been written here then perhaps you need to read it again.

To continue the driving analogy - how many drivers who have just passed their tests are allowed to gain experience as driving instructors?

There will always be good, young helicopter instructors just as there will always be bad, experienced ones but lets not justify using low time instructors because it is the right thing to do when we know it is because it is the cheap thing to do.

[ScotiaQ]

On this thread and others on this Forum, the question of Safety is raised in one form or another.

Isn't it the case that Safety is paramount, providing it doesn't cost too much money? I was in the Industry from 1961 to 2010 and it was ever thus. There were people in the Management tree who subscribed to the principle more than others but there were those who appointed "Safety/Quality Managers" . Write the Manuals and that's job done.

What's the next problem? Cynical....moi?

[HeliComparator]

On this thread and others on this Forum, the question of Safety is raised in one form or another.

Isn't it the case that Safety is paramount, providing it doesn't cost too much money? I was in the Industry from 1961 to 2010 and it was ever thus. There were people in the Management tree who subscribed to the principle more than others but there were those who appointed "Safety/Quality Managers" . Write the Manuals and that's job done.

What's the next problem? Cynical....moi?
No absolutely not. In leisure aviation, safety is not paramount. This is the stupid sort of BS spouted by commercial aviation management who don't know anything about flying. If safety were paramount then we would all stay in bed with the hangar doors firmly locked.

Safety is pretty important in commercial aviation for reasons I'm sure I don't need to go into on here.

Safety in leisure aviation is much more a case of the degree of risk averseness, priorities and general purpose of the flight. For example in my capacity as a gliding instructor flying members of the public on "Trial Lessons", there can be no doubt that we should expect the same number of satisfactory landings as takeoffs. However when I fly my glider in a competition, I may need to cut safety margins to the bone and I accept that one day, I may misjudge slightly and come to grief. If I never do, I probably wasn't trying hard enough!

It is like the difference between a coach driver (who should never crash) and a Formula 1 driver who, when they crash, we just shrug at and get out the next car.

So in leisure aviation it is our necks at risk, we can choose to set whatever level of safety we like. People who are prepared to fly with PPLs should realise that it is probably not as safe as flying on a commercial air transport flight. If they don't, well they are stupid.

[HeliComparator]

if that is how you have interpreted what has been written here then perhaps you need to read it again.

To continue the driving analogy - how many drivers who have just passed their tests are allowed to gain experience as driving instructors?

There will always be good, young helicopter instructors just as there will always be bad, experienced ones but lets not justify using low time instructors because it is the right thing to do when we know it is because it is the cheap thing to do.
It is the cheap thing to do but as said, if we make it the perfect system without considering cost, virtually no-one will be able afford it. Although no doubt some on here would quite like it if PPL helicoptering was reserved only for the rich elite!

It's a bit like a commercial air operator - things have to be a compromise as there is no point in being the best and safest outfit around, if you go bust.

[HeliComparator]

Not if a PPL holder crashes onto you/you house etc
Yes and just remind me how often does that happen? What is the probability of a person dying when an aircraft falls on their head vs the probability of them dying in a road accident? Many, many orders of magnitude. Of course I'm sure the hysterical risk averse contingent will wail and scream at one such occurrence (whilst reading their Daily Mail).

And let's remember that quite a few allegedly competent professional pilots manage to crash into people on the ground. Hawker Hunter anyone? Clutha bar?

[Bell_ringer]

What is a military instructor paid per hour? For comparative purposes..

[Pozidrive]

...the pilot intended to hover, so they could wave at some friends."...


Reminds me of that old adage - "imagine saying that in front of a Judge"

[Hughes500]

HeliCompactor

Please tell which planet you are on or which one you come from ? Which industry uses junior inexperienced people to teach something that can have a serious consequence on not only the trainee but his friends ???
As for the costs of aviation, here is an example part which cost $370 in 2009, now list price $ 1390. Rolls Royce just put up their parts by 7.5% :ugh::ugh:

[HeliComparator]

HeliCompactor

Please tell which planet you are on or which one you come from ? Which industry uses junior inexperienced people to teach something that can have a serious consequence on not only the trainee but his friends ???


I'm from planet realist, clearly you are not from around here. Anyway to answer your question, firstly I'd say that PPL training isn't really an industry - by using that word you are again linking it to commercial aviation, although I suppose you could say anything is an "industry" if you wanted to spin it. So, well there's aviation of course! There are also many, many other such things. Car driving for instance. Anyone with a basic licence can teach someone to drive. In my day you just had to have passed your test (I helped teach my sister to drive when I was 18) although now you have to be 21 I think. Then there is skiing, sub-aqua, horse riding, and... well so many you'll get bored if I recite them all. These are all things where mistakes can seriously injure or kill.

[HeliComparator]

Anyway this is a rather fatuous conversation. People can wail, scream, sob and bang the table as much as they like about how terrible it is that we have young and inexperienced teaching aviation, but really they would better spend their time doing something more useful such as bear bating, because one thing is for sure IT AINT GOING TO CHANGE, GET OVER IT.

[Cut or Paste]

HeliComparator, you point out the differences between a trial lesson and competition flying, and how you treat them differently. That's the decent and proper way to approach it, good for you. Gliding is a lot of fun.

Now imagine if you took up some unsuspecting "friends" on your competition, and they trusted you because they didn't know any better, but trusted you because you are the pilot? I'm sure that you would agree that that would be a bad thing. An extremely arrogant/invulnerable/macho thing?

I don't think this is about relatively inexperienced instructors, more that some types of PPL are just complete twunts. We all make mistakes, but really, the "wave at friends" one is comedy gold.....I bet that will be used in so many case studies. (note to self: get down to Ladbrokes).

Seperately, the cost of running an aircraft is huge and the margins are small. Add to that all the other overheads. Just charge the customer more, if they don't like if they can pick a cheaper hobby, like golf or basket weaving.

Anyway, I hope you don't bite my head off. You appear to be in a bad mood or something?

Peace and love, man! http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gifhttp://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[John R81]

It seems that everyone is agreed thata pilot (commercial or private) should want to be able to recognise risk, toknow / think about how it can be minimised, and then act appropriately toreduce that risk, so far as is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances of thatflight. This is perhaps along-winded way of saying “display good airmanship”. That, in turn, is about having the rightmind-set as a pilot.

The question dividing opinion is how to achieve that mind-set at theoutset (grant of a license) and how to maintain it. The focus on PPL is, to my mind, adistraction because not all holders of commercial licenses display consistentlygood airmanship (based on my reading of all Helicopter accidents recorded by UKAAIB).

I do not see any solution as being (only) instructor-basedas without testing there cannot be enforcement, without which there is less incentive (in a cost-conscious world) spend the time to train.


Stepping away from aviation, how is this handled in otherareas, and can we learn from them? I make two observations and a suggestion.


1. UK Driving License ( easier in my day ) but now they have a hazard perception test. It is a pass-fail test based on your abilityto identify hazards developing.

2. In my line of business (I am a self-declared businessmanPPL) we have our own risk issues. We have regular testing of practitioner's risk assessment and ability to act to mitigate risk appropriately, using web-basedsystems. We read the scenarios and answer the questions; at the end of the test you get a simplepass / fail. Should I fail there is nofeedback as to which questions I got wrong. Instead I would have to undertake therelevant training again in full, and then can re-test. This means that I have to understand the material, not simply learn the answers to the questions. Until we pass, our certificate to practiceis suspended.

My suggestion is a change to the testing environment for everyone, whichin turn will change the training environment. Time and cost can be saved elsewhere; there is material taught andtested at PPL theory level that is of no practical use whatsoever once we hold alicense. Weed-out that material and introduce helicopter (for PPL(H)) specificrisk examples. Already in EASA we have to undertake type-specific annual LPC toretain our license. All (PPL and CPL)could annually take a web-based risk identification / mitigation test before beingallowed to sit their LPC. Failing thetest should require evidence that the risk awareness training has been retaken and the test successfully passed.A solution like that need not create significant additionalrunning cost, and it should put a focus back onto safety throughout the life ofanyone’s license.

[[email protected]]

Excellent suggestions John - glad you aren't listenting to HeliC's dystopian, defeatist posts.

Things can change and must, it is just a case of focussing the CAA's 'eye of Sauron' on the issue and getting them to be pro-active.

[ShyTorque]

A few thoughts: The web based "training" tests I've been required to take seem to be a method for a "responsible person" to show that a box of their own has been ticked. For example, those required to obtain security clearances and airfield driving permits. They seem to revolve mainly around recognising new catch phrases and their abbreviations. They cannot improve an individual's common sense or awareness of their personal limitations. Unfortunately, there really is no substitute for the benefit of experience in aviation.

Those who haven't been through military flying selection, training and the military way of mentoring and supervising newly qualified pilots are often very quick to criticise those who have. Yet many civilian helicopter pilots have probably unknowingly seen the benefit of that same system. It was quite common in the past for experienced military trained pilots to instruct, less so more recently. I'm not personally in an instructional job (although I hold an FI rating) and in a previous life completed four instructional tours in the armed forces, three of them rotary wing. Having later become a civilian pilot (well over twenty years ago) and having been lucky enough to be directly taken on as a multi-role helicopter captain, including SAR, I was initially quite understandably closely mentored by other pilots in the job, all of them ex military, too. Since subsequently flying as a corporate captain (some 16 years now) I've flown with quite a number of copilots, some of them previously "hour building" instructors. Some have been very well qualified on paper, with newly gained ratings. With one or two exceptions, they have all been very keen to learn and most would probably have passed military selection based on flying aptitude alone. However, without suitable mentoring none would have been safe to be let loose as captains, some of them well out of their depth at 140kts VFR, let alone IFR.

However, main problem with the PPL system is that there is no mentoring post qualification.

Employers will take on newly qualified and inexperienced instructors simply because in the main that's all they'll get for the money on offer. There is no depth of experience to pass on in those circumstances.

[HeliComparator]

JohnR81 - I'm sure your proposals would be beneficial, however on the exam contents thing, CAA exams have been full of pointless rubbish for as long as I can remember (which is quite a long time!) and so whilst I agree there is huge room for improvement, I can't see it happening any time soon. Ultimately we need people to recognise new hazards that they have never encountered before rather than just learning a list of what could go wrong, and that is pretty hard to train and assess by computer. You also have to bear in mind that the CAA has to be compliant with EASA, who have to be compliant with ICAO on licensing matters so it is hard to ditch stuff, quite easy to add stuff but then you create too many hurdles and disincentives and ultimately achieve flight safety only because it becomes too difficult for anyone to get a licence.

[HeliComparator]

Excellent suggestions John - glad you aren't listenting to HeliC's dystopian, defeatist posts.

Things can change and must, it is just a case of focussing the CAA's 'eye of Sauron' on the issue and getting them to be pro-active.
So a private helicopter flopped into the ground, no-one was seriously injured, and as a consequence of that you demand that all young instructors be sacked and only old farts like you, preferably with a military background, be allowed to instruct. How amazingly knee-jerk and arrogant.

[HeliComparator]

Shy - so it all comes back to how wonderful ex mil guys and their system are - they have a thing or two to teach us civvies! Funny how in my career many of the pilots I've known who crashed due to stupidity were ex mil, quite a few have never crashed but it is a miracle when you see their competence level. Well I'd say just about the same proportion as those who are civvy from birth. Funny that!

And even if it were not the case, it is ludicrous to suggest that PPLs should have to go through a military level of training, supervising and mentoring before being allowed out on their own. What planet... no idea!

On the other hand if I misunderstood you and you are just saying junior PPLs will inevitably be higher risk than those who are part of an organisation with supervision and mentoring then I'd say Duh! Obviously! But so what?

[nowherespecial]

Mil instructors would typically be a Flt Lt (or equiv) on second tour so basic would be over 45k GBP plus at least about 9k Flying pay. That's on the regular pay scales. The mil web of what you can be paid as spec aircrew is complex, but you should think in general well over 50k GBP.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/community/mura-raf-community/assets/File/20160324-Tri-Service_AFPRB_Directed_Letter_2016-17-FINAL.pdf

[nowherespecial]

Oops, I replied to a comment on what I thought was the final page and turns out I'm a page late....

[[email protected]]

Helicomparator - you are still ranting and railing at comments that simply are not there. I know you have an entrenched position on ex-mil pilots but for goodness sake stop bashing us over the head with your own prejudices.

[ShyTorque]

HC, did you not read my post in full?

I was merely making the point that the main problem is that pilots fresh out of a civilian flying school aren't very closely mentored once they gain their PPL. I've been there myself - my initial flying training was done at a civilian flying school (prior to my military training) and in total I've flown as a civilian pilot for longer than I flew in the military.

All inexperienced pilots can benefit from a mentor, regardless of ability and training.

Unless perhaps they obviously have a flawless natural ability such as your own, where no-one with any military experience need try to teach them anything.

I've seen both systems, you obviously have not and you seem to have a permanent shoulder chip caption on. Most of your posts on this website consist of acrimony towards other professionals. It should be a discussion about flight safety, not acrimonious point scoring because of background, or what you think it might be.

[Camp Freddie]

this post is an attempt to get back on topic from all the ranting !

from Mr Torque,

However, main problem with the PPL system is that there is no mentoring post qualification.

This is certainly the truest true fact that explains some of the nonsense that goes on post PPL

Also several people have picked up on that they fit the profile of those in the 40's of the business man variety, I really think I am on to something here.

Early in the PPL course they are generally respectful of the fact that they know nothing and their instructor knows something, but a certain percentage of the students at a certain point start to try to treat the instructor like one of their employees and in the hands of an experienced instructor they can be easily controlled, but the younger and less experienced FI(R) can get streamrollered by them if they are not careful and the student starts to run the flight,

This is my experience, and it just leads to greater problems post PPL

[HeliComparator]

HC, did you not read my post in full?

I was merely making the point that the main problem is that pilots fresh out of a civilian flying school aren't very closely mentored once they gain their PPL. I've been there myself - my initial flying training was done at a civilian flying school (prior to my military training) and in total I've flown as a civilian pilot for longer than I flew in the military.

All inexperienced pilots can benefit from a mentor, regardless of ability and training.



Of course they can. But leisure aviation is a compromise even more so than commercial aviation. You could of course invent some mandatory mentoring system e.g. requiring PPLs to be part of some organisation or club such that old farts can put their awe in regularly (and probably disagreeing with every other old fart). But in doing so you are removing the freedoms of a licenced pilot - they effectively become pilots under supervision. I'm sure you wouldn't mind that too much but I'm sure anyone contemplating getting a licence now, would see it as the excessive nannying that it is. A PPL is an international qualification and if you make it too difficult to get in the UK, people will go elsewhere and anyway EASA wouldn't be too impressed.

But no matter, as a reaction to an R44 flopping in and not seriously injuring anyone, it is clearly a megalomaniacal over-reaction and it ain't going to happen, so why witter on about it?

[HeliComparator]

Helicomparator - you are still ranting and railing at comments that simply are not there. I know you have an entrenched position on ex-mil pilots but for goodness sake stop bashing us over the head with your own prejudices.
I only have an entrenched position on (some) ex-mil because they routinely spit out the same arrogant rubbish about how wonderful they and the organisation that trained them are/is. After all, we only notice someone is ex mil when it forms a repetitive part of their posting.

[[email protected]]

Much as we only notice those with a massive chip on their shoulder about not being ex-mil, how much better they are because they worked on the N Sea, and how no-one could learn from ex-mil (arrogant) pilots - because they keep banging on about it on these pages.

Post-PPLH mentoring is a good idea and most of those without egos on here recognise it - it doesn't have to restrict their freedoms or cost a fortune, but it is a good idea and those that want to learn and improve will - those that don't won't but they will probably be in a minority.

[HeliComparator]

Much as we only notice those with a massive chip on their shoulder about not being ex-mil, how much better they are because they worked on the N Sea, and how no-one could learn from ex-mil (arrogant) pilots - because they keep banging on about it on these pages.

Post-PPLH mentoring is a good idea and most of those without egos on here recognise it - it doesn't have to restrict their freedoms or cost a fortune, but it is a good idea and those that want to learn and improve will - those that don't won't but they will probably be in a minority.
It already exists to a large extent in flying clubs. In fact in my other life as a glider pilot whereby no licence is currently required to fly IFR or cross country, gliding clubs and the BGA system is supervision and mentoring par excellence. Which is great.

So my point is not that mentoring is ineffective, it is that it is unfeasible to enforce it for PPLs. The whole point of having a licence is that you can operate independently! Of course it is the usual story of those who don't really need to will seek advice and good counsel anyway, those who really do need it are too arrogant to realise and so won't.

So far folk seem to have decided that in order to avoid a pilot flopping his R44 into a field we must eliminate young instructors - even though we have no idea who this chap's instructor(s) was/were. And that he is an arrogant fool who wouldn't have crashed if only he had been forced to have some mentoring.

In these days of evidence-based regulatory actions, that is nothing short of barking.

[ShyTorque]

HC, I never wrote about demanding mandatory training post PPL. By claiming that I do, you've just invented it as another way of venting your spleen against others of a different background to yourself (i.e. military), as seems to be your usual thing. As I did say, you really can't comment on military training or supervision because by your own admission you don't have any experience of it.

I also know that some very sensible newly qualified PPL helicopter pilots do regularly ask for an instructor to fly along with them and pay them to do so (and which will please you, not necessarily an ex-military one). Good on them. But it's an unfortunate fact that at the other end of the scale some low houred, fresh out of the box extrovert PPL "know it-alls" know so little they don't even realise they are about to do something that is likely to result in an accident and there is no supervisory chain to stop them. Which is where this thread began. The evidence is on the accident report above and in a depressingly high number of others in the past.

[HeliComparator]

ST no you didn't state it outright but that seemed the implication. But of course you couldn't resist the "when I was in the military we did it so much better..." kind of comment.

I don't disagree with your last para but I do think it is pie in the sky to expect some sort of mandatory supervision / mentoring for PPLs. Perhaps our disagreement is just because I am a realist, and also because I accept that leisure aviation will have a higher proportion of crashery than commercial or military aviation. Whereas you see a problem and want it fixed regardless of the practicalities or loss of freedoms. Perhaps a move to a police state where private aviation is not allowed would suit you?

[ShyTorque]

Whereas you see a problem and want it fixed regardless of the practicalities or loss of freedoms. Perhaps a move to a police state where private aviation is not allowed would suit you?

Total Bo££ocks, as usual. I've never implicated any such thing. Did you fail at Cranwell, or something?

[[email protected]]

So far folk seem to have decided that in order to avoid a pilot flopping his R44 into a field we must eliminate young instructors - even though we have no idea who this chap's instructor(s) was/were. And that he is an arrogant fool who wouldn't have crashed if only he had been forced to have some mentoring. No one has said anything of the sort - or implied it, you are imagining it.

Any mention of the military system has been to highlight how we are protected from ourselves (for the most part) and prevented from doing the enemy's job for him by being constantly educated and reminded of the pitfalls and mistakes made by others.

We know we are fortunate to have had that progression, tuition, development and protection - is it arrogant to suggest something similar might benefit those starting out in the private flying game?

Being a member of a club is a great way to reap the benefits of others experience - a chat over a beer with an old sweat might just save an embarrassing incident, accident, write-off or even loss of life. The days of sitting around the crewroom chewing the fat, learning from the stories of others - peers as well as the older/more experienced were many of the most valuable for many of us in the military - sadly that sort of environment doesn't exist widely in GA.

You are rather polarised in your position - you seem to believe that if we try to improve anything, it automatically equates to loss of freedom or massive increase in cost which will deny aviation to the masses; this is more sad than realistic since you would rather do nothing and let people kill themselves and others for the want of a little education.

It's not just the 'flopping' of an R44 into a field - that is just the latest in a litany of very preventable accidents (many with fatalities) caused simply by the lack of airmanship.

[muffin]

I had no idea you could shoot wild boars in the Peak District. This was possibly the most unexpected part of the report.

I thought the same. It seems it is clays only.

[gasax]

I have watched this thread with some amusement. As ever the ex-military folk are full of how much better the military system is.
Well hardly surprising, no real consideration of cost, nearly unlimited time, a hierarchical control system where junior ranks can only operate with permission, no real need to get things done in the minimum time possibe Whilst some people might volunteer to join this arrangement mere ppls obviously would not, commercial training has always taken advantage of the experience levels that military pilots have picked up at notionally no expense to the operator - when they have to pay for less than 500hrs is plenty!

Mentoring - yes can be very effective and most of the ppls I know do some. The people who probably need it most are however perhaps lest likely to seek it out. The answer for most here seems to be they would not be allowed in the military so they should not have a licence!

JAA tried to address this point, compulsory flight with an instructor every two years - the result? No improvement in accident rates!

Certainly a supportive club or group environment can help, but my local gliding club has had a couple of stupid accidents where all that support has not heped and reslted in broken aircraft and people.

Like HC I have tired of the military is best argument - without the people making it understanding they have been in an environment almost totally protected from the real world. Practical training is cost and time constrained, it aims to achieve a level of competence where people will survive and learn whilst the pay to build experience.

The training syllabus is stuffed full of rubbish, coming from the point of view that culling out some people without the necessary intelligence and memory is its purpose. Does it achieve that? No, it simply clouds the issues and makes people swop up the answers rather than the reasons. EASA has simply continued that process, courtesy of may of the ex-military types that fill regulatory positions.

[Hughes500]

I am afraid to say this thread is getting very sad. The more responsible of us try and make the system better and point out its weakness, yes HC i have a very bad name at The CAA for trying to do so, to make people safer. Quite frankly with your attitude I really don't know why I should bother, let the new generation kill themselves.
Here is an example for you i would welcome your professional comments on. Last week doing some training with a PPLH, not one of mine, I stuck the pedals in a cruise position just before the start of a descent from 800 ft to land. Student realised at 500 ft, asked me to take feet of pedals I refused saying no they are stuck, what are you going to be about it. Reply I do not know. I again asked what we were going to do at 200 ft, again reply I do not know. At 100 ft I asked again what are we going to do, again reply I do not know. My reply I have control.

[HeliComparator]

I am afraid to say this thread is getting very sad. The more responsible of us try and make the system better and point out its weakness, yes HC i have a very bad name at The CAA for trying to do so, to make people safer. Quite frankly with your attitude I really don't know why I should bother, let the new generation kill themselves.
Here is an example for you i would welcome your professional comments on. Last week doing some training with a PPLH, not one of mine, I stuck the pedals in a cruise position just before the start of a descent from 800 ft to land. Student realised at 500 ft, asked me to take feet of pedals I refused saying no they are stuck, what are you going to be about it. Reply I do not know. I again asked what we were going to do at 200 ft, again reply I do not know. At 100 ft I asked again what are we going to do, again reply I do not know. My reply I have control.
Isn't stuck pedals part of the PPL training? So the guy will have been taught it, but not taken it in at the time or forgotten it. So I don't really see your point - people get taught stuff they subsequently forget. Happened all the time in my professional career as a Training Captain doing recurrent checks on professional pilots, so I see no reason why it shouldn't happen to PPLs too.

But it's interesting that you want to make a big deal out of that particular thing. I think it is a fairly pointless excercise since just how often does yaw control get stuck at the pedals? It is a completely different kettle of fish to yaw control getting stuck at the tail rotor. I know a great many pilots with 10,000 hrs or more each, none of them have ever had such an event. So just how important is it? By which I mean, if that PPL has an accident it won't be due to that circumstance but it will be due to some event not covered by trite and repetitive excercises.

When it does happen it is most likely due to some obstruction of the pedals by an object dropped by the occupants, or of course even more likely as a result of the passenger plonking his feet on the pedals. So your PPL was absolutely correct in recognising the problem and telling you to get your feet off the pedals. He had obviously visually checked for obstructions which was the right thing to do, and on seeing the problem he dealt with it correctly within his limited authority as P2. I wonder if you praised him for that or merely ridiculed him for not ignoring the obvious problem and instead carrying out some gung ho running landing thingy just like you were taught by an equally mindless instructor.

Well I'll give you that it is a slightly useful excercise in that it reinforces the concept of yaw with power, but it is just a game and some people find it hard to take role playing games seriously. Doesn't mean they are a bad pilot, just a bad actor.

In summary stuck yaw pedals isn't a common or even infrequent cause of accidents. So could you explain why you were wasting time on it, rather than concentrating on the sort of issue that is much, much more likely to be the cause of this guy's first accident? Seems you are part of the problem.

[Hughes500]

Well HC and Alpha time for me to give up then, hope I never get to fly with either of you as quite frankly your views send a shudder down my spine. I can only take from your views that we don't teach anything to do with what if scenarios or anything to do with safety.
As I am obviously crap at my job could you please tell me what you would like me to teach when it comes to emergencies ? I have left my brain behind ?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

The really funny part of this thread is despite all the money, professionalism, mentoring etc, I can recall quite a few military helicopter accidents where the mistakes made by this R44 pilot have also featured.
As an ex military pilot myself I would say giving the resources, selection process and all the other favourable factors and conditions we enjoyed, when making a comparison with civil PPL training, the respective accidents rates and root causes are disproportionate......and actually favour the Civil sector. And I am not talking about operational military flying. Just training and peacetime.
It's also easy to claim the military flight envelope is more demanding but hitting the ground IS hitting the ground no matter how you manage to get there.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Hughes500 I think if you ever had the chance to fly with HC it would be your privilege. He has a wealth of knowledge and a lifetime of experience. You would surely benefit even just a little.

I also was intrigued by your TR fixed pitch story for one clear reason! These excercises are inherently dangerous. Therefore you should NEVER instigate them in flight without a full and proper brief when instructing. The fact your student did not even realise what your were simulating by placing your feet on the pedals stirs my own inner instructor to the point of moral outrage.

Introducing exercises during training, especially flight control malfunctions that require a highly advanced diagnosis and subsequent flight profile, without a ground brief is dangerous and extremely traumatic for the student.

This also applies exactly the same for Flight Tests and Checks. All critical exercises must at least have a safety brief AND can even include guidance and confirmatory instruction to at least ensure safety is served.

H500 I know you will smart a bit and kick back at what I have written, however, if you truly want to take on the CAA or improve the standards of PPL skills generally look carefully at what I have written in conjunction with what HC also states about your students initial reaction. That SHOULD have been a clear indicator to you to say "Oh you are not sure....then let me give you a brief (possibly in flight) followed by some top notch demos (which I am sure you can do), followed by his practise. EXPLANATION, DEMONSTRATION, IMITATION.

Sitting there with your feet jammed on the pedals and letting the poor guy descend to 100 feet having no clue how to resolve the problem would have been horrific for that pilot. In my view you should seriously consider your conduct and the effect it would have had on this student.

[Bravo73]

...and the effect it would have had on this student.

Apologies for butting in but I think that Hughes500's point is that this wasn't a 'student'. The pilot in question already held a PPL(H) so, technically, he/she should have already covered 'stuck pedals'. If he/she couldn't recall what to do, they should've had a go at problem solving the issue, rather than just blankly saying 'I don't know' repeatedly.

I suspect that Hughes500's point was what would this particular pilot do if they had stuck pedals for real when flying on their own? Just repeatedly say 'I don't know' until they ran out of fuel, or spun in. Or work out what to do in order to get the aircraft back on the ground?

(And yes, unfortunately, mobile phones do often get dropped and then subsequently get caught in pedal controls).

[HeliComparator]

Well HC and Alpha time for me to give up then, hope I never get to fly with either of you as quite frankly your views send a shudder down my spine. I can only take from your views that we don't teach anything to do with what if scenarios or anything to do with safety.
As I am obviously crap at my job could you please tell me what you would like me to teach when it comes to emergencies ? I have left my brain behind ?

Whether you are so crap at your job as to need to give up I don't know, it would be unreasonable to make a call based on an Internet forum. But to answer your questions I'd say we should be teaching stuff that in the real world is likely to cause a pilot to come to grief and how to deal with it so it doesn't. So for a new PPL, distractions and interference from a passenger must surely be high on the list. Could you cite any PPL accident say in the last 10 years where jammed yaw pedals was the cause?

And on a related point, you say this was a training flight. A refresher training flight should start in the briefing room where you review what you are going to do, what you expect from the student, covering theory and practice and thus getting a feel for what the PPL knows and maybe doesn't know. Then you go on the TRAINING flight and put it into practice. Just flying along and thinking up some pat emergency drill and then bollocking the guy when he gets it wrong is a testing flight, not a training flight. With the former approach the PPL will hopefully go away having learned something and will respect you for helping him. With the latter he will consider that the aim of the flight was for you to demonstrate how much cleverer you are than he is and he will go away having learnt only that the instructor is an a**e.

Edited to say DB beat me to it and put it so much better!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

B73, I understand fully the implications of this PPL not being able to save himself if his pedals/TR got stuck. That is not my point!

None of us SHOULD ever introduce such exercises without a full brief.

In CAT land we also forget how to do these things. That's precisely what there is a requirement for Annual Flight Training, before checking.

I am sorry but any Instructor of mine who subjected any pilot to the situation H500 described himself, would be pulled and retrained himself as the core concepts of teaching and learning, allied to the very clear safety guidelines in training, are absent between the lines of H500s story.

[Bravo73]

If I had stuck pedals on an LPC, I wouldn't expect the examiner to have warned me about it beforehand. I certainly wouldn't expect to be briefed about it earlier either.

If the outcome wasn't expected after trying to deal with the issue, I would then expect the usual explanation/demonstration/imitation.

[HeliComparator]

If I had stuck pedals on an LPC, I wouldn't expect the examiner to have warned me about it beforehand. I certainly wouldn't expect to be briefed about it earlier either.

If the outcome wasn't expected after trying to deal with the issue, I would then expect the usual explanation/demonstration/imitation.
Perhaps you are confused by the difference between a training flight and a testing flight? An LPC is a testing flight and does not allow for training.

How can an LPC be a testing flight if when you get it wrong, you are trained "on the hoof" until you get it right? Guaranteed pass, I suppose!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

B73 I don't doubt the sincerity of your statement above. However, the Examiner would have failed to follow the very clear CAA published guidelines. In my case STDS doc 24H. And I quote:

"It is perfectly proper for Examiners to include some training input during the briefing...."

It goes on to describe this SHOULD not be a full training brief but rather facilitate, by Q&A technique that the candidate has a reasonable understanding of the exercises he will fly, aimed mainly at critical failures, and in the interests of the Examiner serving both the testing requirement and the essential safety brief for those exercise.

Of course the guidance is generic and open to interpretation. However, to protect the candidate and myself I would ALWAYS brief simulated TR malfunctions both for training and testing when I am conducting them in the actual aircraft. In the FFS there is a little latitude BUT only in so far as the essential safety brief. The training element must be served always.

Above all, committing a student or candidates money, or in our case the Company's money to Flight or FFS time where the brief is inadequate or non existent makes no sense economically or is indeed fair to the PPL who I guess is paying for the Instruction or Check.

The primary purpose of Instruction is to improve knowledge skills and thus safety. In H500 story I cannot see how this was achieved.

So in the future B73 feel free to challenge your Examiner if he fails to brief adequately for this exercise. Otherwise the check is simply a chop ride and most certainly could never be conducted as safely as when a full, sympathetic and relevant brief has been given that at least conforms to the CAA guidelines. Maybe that's what H500 struggles with the Authority!

[Hughes500]

Right guys the student i was flying with has over 400 hours has done his CPL course in this country, failed his CPL skills test ( 3 times ). He asked for some refresher training on VOR ( having had a very lengthy brief on VOR's tracking etc etc )and some general handling. I asked when coming back into the circuit what the Vne on a 300 was, big pause, obviously didn't know, looked at gauge and then gave the wrong answer. Decided at that point well lets look at an emergency, I like stuck pedals as it puts the pilot under a bit of pressure, but allows quite a lot of time to think about a solution. It also shows when coming into land how much confidence the pilot has and what finesse he has on the controls. Forgive me HC if I was a passenger and this guy as a CPL or even a PPL the last thing I want to hear his I don't know, couldn't even work it out. had a lengthy debrief about this and other emergencies. During this debrief it became evident that his training ( FAA licence ) and his UK CPL training was woeful. Thankfully it has been caught by various examiners.
Sorry to disappoint you HC but I will continue to show those I fly with where I have got things wrong, yes including flying in bad weather, a settling with power incident while long lining, an engine failure at 80 ft and 30 kts and loads of other things.
If showing someone stuck pedals, an EOL, flying at MAUW, flying in 1500m viz helps saves someones life one day then I will be a happy bunny. Having had a student / friend kill themselves from a 500 ft high hover really sharpens the mind as to what one teaches and concentrates on. If you teach / show people, things that hopefully they never need then maybe one day it might make the difference between walking away or not.
Sorry if English is not great writing in a hurry !

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 but you did not "Show" him stuck pedals did you! You tested him in that exercise unbriefed having originally briefed a VOR procedure.

I am sorry but even 10,000 hour ATPL in full time employment need retraining on many exercises prior to the check. This is precisely the reason for the 6 month OPC and the training mandated prior to doing it. These requirements are a clear recognition that in 6 months of normal flying, skills fade on those exercises that cannot be done without an Instructor.

Your 400 hour PPL has my sympathy. The poor guy was struggling generally as you describe so just to heap sh1t on him you do the unbriefed TR procedure.

Mate I would take a long hard look at your conduct with this guy and ask yourself, did you help him at all and I a, assuming the poor sod paid for this humiliation.

No bud I will fly with HC long before I put myself in your hands.

[Hughes500]

DB
Let me be very very clear here, I was asked by the guy and his school to run over VOR as their machine didnt have one. At the same time i was asked by both to do the following (he was briefed on what we would be doing) some general handling and some emergencies.
So you are telling me that a relatively easy emergency to deal with in a Schweizer 300 would be difficult for a 10000 hour pilot to perform ? I am afraid that everyone of my PPL's that I have trained will put one on the ground with no help from me. You have just confirmed what a mess our industry is in if a 10000 hour ATPL couldn't do that, what the fu.k are they doing flying a helicopter if they have to be trained before their OPC. So what happens when the pedals are stuck the day before their OPC ..... Sorry passengers I havent been trained for this so we are going to crash:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
I agree with you don't want to be in a machine with you

[SilsoeSid]

If showing someone stuck pedals ...... helps saves someones life one day then I will be a happy bunny.

What I don't understand in all this discussion Hughesy, is that you had the ideal opportunity to do exactly that, but you didn't :hmm:

[Ennio]

Hughes500

If I may ask, after you took control, what then?
Did you land or run the other guy through the correct actions for "stuck pedals"?
I really don't understand why you allowed him to go any lower than 500' without being the
instructor you should be and demonstrating the correct actions. You appear to me to be
trying to dig yourself out of a hole you have created which makes you look very much like
the instructor a PPL would not want to fly with again? I've flown with only a few who would
consider doing what you did. During my initial PPL training in 88, I had to change instructors
so I could get to grips with hover engine offs. The replacement instructor was calm, considerate and would not have entertained behaviour such as yours. I have to agree with HC and DB I'm afraid.
I don't post very often on here but I do visit a few times a week. With regards Mil verses
Civi pilots, I personally see no difference here on the North Sea. I have flown with each many times. I also flew elsewhere for 9 years before coming to the NS. To me, it's a persons attitude that makes a good pilot. Putting anyone down does no good at all in my opinion.

[Two's in]

Ignoring the somewhat predictable and repetitive nature of this thread, there is one very obvious difference between military and civilian training which is overlooked. All military pilots have been tested and have successfully demonstrated an acceptable level of aptitude during pilot selection tests. This simply means they have displayed an ability to scan, absorb, process and react to various information sources within an acceptable time frame and to an acceptable standard. This doesn't make you a pilot, but it does allow you to concentrate on the flying task without struggling to maintain situational awareness when in the cockpit. I don't know the fail rate currently, but it used to be about 50% of the applicants.

As a civilian pilot, aptitude remains an unknown quantity until you are in the cockpit on Exercise 1. If we extrapolate the rough statistic, about half of those students will do perfectly fine, but the other half will be working very hard to stay the right way up (figuratively and literally). Those that work to develop better aptitude will inevitably end up taking more time, and burning more money to get to the required standard, but for a small number they will always be on or outside the competency boundary. Some instructors will recognize this, others may not. If the student keeps paying, who cares how long it takes, right?

So what?

Well it means that military trained pilots generally have one less means of killing themselves and their passengers, in that they have demonstrated flying aptitude. It doesn't mean there are no stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous military pilots out there, of course there are. It just means that while they are being stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous they are probably fully in control of the aircraft with the requisite situational awareness. The same rule applies of course to the civilian trained pilots who also have the requisite level of flying aptitude, they have just never been formally tested for it.

Most of us can be aviation professionals, whichever route we choose, but the military mitigates the risk against those who might not have the capacity for professionalism at an early stage.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500, for you TR malfunctions are easy because you teach and practice them very often. However, a commercial pilot carrying passengers every day, and particularly in offshore where there is ZERO opportunity for the crews to do general handling or practise anything but normal procedures,their skills fade.

This is the most widely recognised problem of intensive compluant CAT operations. It is EXACTLY why the crews are afforded the chance eac 6 months the practice these exercises prior to being checked for competency. The entire EU-OPS training system is based on this fundemental principle. Without regular practise performance deterioratesand you are correct. Theoretically the day before his 6 monthly check istheoreticlly his most incompetent day. Now older pilots who have been through many regular, AND PRODUCTIVE training and Check cycles show less fade than those who have not done that many both in theory and in general practise. There are exceptions and they generally end up as TRI TRE as a result.

You can carry on and buck the system and believe that all pilots should, at the drop off a hat, safely solve all emergencies but I can tell you that is generally not the case and it has very little to do with their appititude, suitability or prior training and EVERYTHING to do with lack of adequate practise time.

As an Instructor/Examiner myself, like I guess all my contemporaries, we would always argue that more training time should be afforded and more practise offered. However the practical and fiscal constraints of most flight operations make this difficult and in my heart I am so grateful that EASA continue to mandate the training and checking regimes as is.in addition, huge respect for the UK CAA for the content and guidance in Standrads Doc 24 H for their clear recognition, that during checking, proper briefing should occur and appropriate training and guidance offered for those procedures that the candidate does not normally do during his day job. The "2 Attempt" principle of checking clearly recognises that the candidate should at least be able to diagnose his own errors but is allowed a second go at the exercise. It also recognises that if the Examiners sees a successful competent exercise that could be further improved with some hints and guidance, he can offer it.

This is "Checking". You were tasked to do training Iam sorry but in my honest opinion, if you actually proceeded as you described, you broke just about every principle of the Part-01 Teaching and Learning module for the Core Instructors course. I list the, for you:

BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY THE BRIEF
BY EMPATHETIC WITH THE STUDENT
PROGRESS LOGICALLY THROUGH EACH EXERCISE
RE-BRIEF WHERE REQUIRED
DO NOT INTRODUCE EXERCISES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BRIEFED
DO NOT INFRINGE SAFETY MARGINS (letting a student descend to 100 feet with no yaw control when he has already told you he does not know how to proceed could have ended very differently if he panicked as the ground came up and caught you out)

So how you took a student out for some VOR practice, combined with critical flight control malfunctions that were not briefed, knowing he was already behind the aircraft in the briefed VOR exercise is beyond my comprehensio. However, for free, and to help you gauge you conduct, if you did that to an offshore pilot in a real helicopter I suspect your training management would look very chisels at you. Not him.

I am trying to think of something positive to say to you but it's not easy.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500, I have thought of something positive to say, reading my own posts I come across as a "Holier than thou prat"

However, I too have done something similar to what you done. Several times. I have also found at times, myself being frustrated at the students lack of progress and let this bleed from me across the cockpit or from the FFS seat. I have sometimes rushed my briefs or briefed poorly.

I used to be a very good pilot and did not make any mistakes but as I get older I seem to have started to make mistakes. Could it just be my age or is it that my greater knowledge, experience and wisdom actually allows me see mistakes now that I was always making. I am not sure! However the process has given me much more empathy with those pilots who I am hugely privelidged to be able to train and check. It's not always the case but I would say that at least I am generally honest after the event. I try to look inward and see how my behaviour can really affect those in my care. Sometimes I am brilliant and the student hangs on my every word and makes tremendous progress. Sometimes the reverse. Sometimes my lack of affection for the poor guy in my charge dulls my enthusiasm. These are my failings not his.

Training and checking is a dynamic fluid process where literally anything can happen. However, I have learned slowly that the whole damn thing hangs on the quality of the brief. I have tried wherever possible to standardise briefs with PowerPoint etc to eradicate the fluctuations in my own performance.

Human factors affect everything we do. We are after all only human.

I recommend to you in great humility to read again some of the CAA guidance for training and checking. You cannot dip your toe in. You've got to swallow the whole thing and try hard to implement i and in my experience it works more often than not.

I have also been very lucky to have myself received always entirely excellent training from vey gifted instructors. I try my best to emulate the best parts of them. They know who they are and like most professional pilots I owe them for everything I have achieved even if at times my own performance sucks.

Look at ourselves first before we critique the student. Ask not why he his doing that but why I have let him get to that point Was it the brief. Was it my demo. Am I Rushing him too far too fast. Easy words to write but not easy to do in practise.

That's all I have. I truly hope you find something useful in this post.

DB

[[email protected]]

Hughes - if perhaps HC and DB could dismount from their high horses they might see that what you did was completely fair, not even remotely dangerous and actually good post-PPL instruction.

You established, without drama, the limited extent of the student's aircraft knowledge, retention of taught emergencies and ability to think through a problem that might present itself in the air for real.

DB - no-one said mil pilots don't crash - either in training or operationally - but this thread was started to highlight 2 very preventable accidents and you know how much value the mil puts on doing that. Your rather rigid attitude to instruction is perhaps why people like Geoffersincornwall are complaining about the poor standard of training and flying in civil ops. Box-ticking to meet regulated minima doesn't make for good pilots.

[Hughes500]

Sorry have to be quick as I am away mountain biking. Following " the I have control" to answer the question I spent about 20 minutes with him sorting out stuck pedals, which he fully understood and said was tremendously beneficial ( this included sticking the pedal , left one , for a transition away.)
The issue that I have, obviously not put down very well ,here is I was asked to do some VOR revision followed by general handling based on a CPL skills test.
My beef here and it proves the point, this is a potential CPL who over 400 hours over 6 Biannual check rides, a 35 hour CPL course, 3 loads of recurrent training we can't perform a relatively easy emergency and to make it worse was happy to sit there and do nothing.
Perhaps to keep some on this thread happy perhaps I should teach the following, to keep in my fashion the lesson numbers are the old ones
Lesson 1-2 walk round check, safety etc etc - why bother
Lesson 3 air experience
lesson 4 effects of controls - suppose I better do that one
Lesson 5 2sets of controls together "
Lesson 6 speed, power changes climbing descending yup better do that
Lesson 7 Basic autos, no don't need that as engines don't fall, rarely need an auto for any other reason
Lesson 8 hovering yes better do that
Lesson 9 landing / take off yes
Lesson 10 transitions yes
Lesson 11 circuits perhaps we could get rid of this as helicopters don't really need to fly one
Lesson 12 first solo yup
Lesson 13 spot turns yes
Lesson 14 sideways backwards yes
Lesson 15 vortex ring - suppose we better
Lesson 16 EOL.s no engines don't fail
Lesson 17 adv auto's lets not bother as engine s rarely fail
Lesson 18 PFL's well we could cut this one short as helicopters rarely go wrong
Lesson 19 steep turns, why do we want to go round in a big 30 degree bank turn for ?
Lesson 20 point to point hovering, weld we really need to do this ?
Lesson 21 quick stops, do we really need to do that, bit of fun
Lesson 22 Nav, we all use Satnav so why bother
Lesson 23 Limited power, better do this as everyone overloads everything
Lesson 24 sloping ground yup lets do this
Lesson 25 Down wind, yup as we need to know this
Lesson 26 restricted sites, better do this as we are flying a helicopter
Lesson 27 IF well should we shouldn't we

So basically according to some we could cut down the whole PPL from 45 hours to about 30 by removing Nav, most emergencies, all autos

I will be back for your answers late this afternoon subject to me crashing and off to hospital ( many a true word here !!! )

[[email protected]]

However, a commercial pilot carrying passengers every day, and particularly in offshore where there is ZERO opportunity for the crews to do general handling or practise anything but normal procedures,their skills fade.perhaps the recent NS TR issue with the S92 might cause people to reflect on that!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Crab - I agree with your first point. However the students standard SHOULD have been established in the briefing room where something could be done to address it before wasting the students money in the air AND increasing the risks in the actual training.

For your second point. All that I have indicated has nothing to do with being rigid in training. EASA Regulations for a TRI are THE LAW whether you agree or not. For practical purposes, CAA guidelines to an authorised TRE are as good as the law.

You do not know me. You have no idea what my training standards or technique is like and like most of your posts they smack heavily on anti-authority mixed with the arrogance that a few years in SAR makes you believe you are entitled to.

Well guess what, eventually in the Civil world, just like the military world you will realise that compliance is a must. Not an option.

Finally, don't try to tell me that in your old SAR world you would BRIEF THE FLIGHT and FLY A COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT BRIEF during SAR training.

Briefing for a VOR sortie, realising that the student can't cope so electing to introduce a TR malfunction, unplanned and unbriefed, prolonging the exercise from 800 feet to 100 feet despite the student announcing clearly at 500 feet he does not know what to do, ( no surprise to me seeing as he received no brief). Is not and never will be an acceptable method of progressing a student. Now Crab. DO you agree with that or disagree.

If you choose to disagree please explain in a rational manner the following;

1. the compliance of the activity against published documents fine/rules etc

2. The training value the student received from the training

3. The Safety Management TEM principles deployed.

4. The overall value for money the student received. Is he entitled to a brief before he is expected to fly etc.

Answer those Crab before you try to critics even me again.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 thank you for the list but you are being coy now and you know better than that.

You BRIEF extensively for the core exercise that the sortie will involve. You MUST brief for all safety critical exercise as follows:

1. Involving movement of engine control levers/switches
2. Involving hazardous manoeuvres (Autos, EOLs, Vortex Ring, Simulated control failures) including recovery heights, control handover etc.
3. Responsibilities for real emergencies

You can assume, at the input standard of that particular student all NORMAL manoeuvres do not need to be briefed apart from the manoeuvres and procedures appended to the AIM of the sortie.

But you know all this and still you post a smokescreen.

[Bell_ringer]

This escalated quickly..
Helo ops are diverse and encompass a broad range of environments requiring different skills, capabilities and training.

Lumping recreational flying into the same bucket as you would military operations isn't a fair comparison.
Most people, with the correct training, have what it takes to develop basic helicopter handling skills that would allow safe private flying.

After all, If you can manage the workload of trying to survive road traffic in a busy US or European city, it really isn't a big jump to doing so above ground - granted in a less forgiving environment.

Where some work is needed is that training can sometimes be delivered as a sequential series of lessons, rather than incorporating scenarios that allow a student to properly digest the material and translate it into a practical application of skills.
The other is educating new pilots to understand that the initial license is just the beginning of your "real world" training, and to help them build a personal structure for ongoing development and maintaining currency.

Ultimately though the individual needs to take this on board. Short of regulating (which rarely improves anything) it is better to build a culture of safety and learning throughout the initial training experience.

The biggest gotcha to avoid is developing a sense of complacency, which is where I believe many of the problems begin.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Crab in regards the recent event S92 to be fair to the crew they all walked away. Job well done!

No doubt the various stakeholders while now analyse, as of course they should, to see if the job could be done any better. But in a heavy helicopter full of PAX a malfunction like they had is not an easy proposition AND I suspect mostly because you can never really be sure exactly what has caused it and therefore time pressure creeps in. Especially with recent Transmission histories on the heavies.

My initial thoughts were why they did not look for a long runway. However faced with the distance, the uncertainty of the cause and the eventual outcome, without knowing all the details I think the crew did a tremendous job.

In training this is the one drawback of the brief. It means most of the time the student has no doubt what has caused the malfunction. Real life is just not like that. The uncertainty can forces more time pressure than we can never simulate in training.

[[email protected]]

H500, I have thought of something positive to say, reading my own posts I come across as a "Holier than thou prat" I don't need to criticise you when your fault analysis of yourself is so thorough:E

So you are telling me that you can't take a 400 hour pilot, thoroughly brief the main element of the sortie (VOR) and then introduce some ad hoc GH (which he asked for) and a simulated emergency that didn't involve any safety critical systems being deselected? Are you also telling me you can't introduce anything into the sortie that hasn't been thoroughly briefed before hand? Remember we are talking about someone going for CPL, not a basic PPL student.

Many of my SAR instructional and examination sorties had a basic outline brief with anything specific that need to be worked on, covered in more detail BUT when a student smashes the easy stuff, you want to be able to assess how good/what potential they have (much of my role was in developing pilots to Op Captaincy and beyond) so you have to be able to introduce unbriefed scenarios/emergencies so you can see what they know and can do.

If all you do is brief fly and debrief the required elements then you might well satisfy the rules and regs but you are not testing the student except to see if they can reproduce what you briefed them on.

However the students standard SHOULD have been established in the briefing room do please tell me how you assess the standard of his handling/airmanship/captaincy that way.

I seem to have managed to be compliant as an instructor since 1989, constantly been assessed as above average and frequently exceptional and instructed everything from basic students to QHI students and those with tens of hours to those with many thousands of hours. You will, of course, just say this is me being arrogant but I know I am just one of many mil instructors who keep churning out good quality product iaw all the training directives, safety considerations, rules and regs - don't think that is really anti-authority, do you?

The S92 incident was a classic case of the crew talking themselves out of having a problem (undemanded yaw on lift) and then continuing the task and coming very close to losing the aircraft when the TR malfunction recurred because it had never gone away. Not a job well done (apart from keeping a spinning helo on a helideck) but poor awareness and CRM.

[HeliComparator]

Crab - the import point you seem oblivious to is that flight in question wasn't a testing flight it was a training flight. Makes me wonder if you fully grasp the difference?

A well conducted training flight with a fairly broad agenda would, as we've already mentioned, start the briefing room. One would get the student to talk through the various excercises that might be contemplated and it would rapidly become obvious when a weak spot was reached, either because he was unable to describe, e.g., how to deal with jammed pedals, or because he said "yes, I've alway found that really difficult". Of course this requires the instructor to be in receive mode, something some struggle with as they are stuck in transmit mode - often transmitting to ensure the student is quite clear just how much more they know / how clever they are.

A refresher brief then ensues and you then go out to practice it in flight. A productive training session!

If you just pick an emergency at random in flight, there are only two possible outcomes, one is that it all goes according to plan, in which case it was a waste of flight time, or it doesn't go to plan in which case the PPL merely learns that he can't do something. Also a complete waste of time.

Testing is of course a different matter but it is not what was being talked about. I really do think some instructors struggle with the fundamental but vitally important difference.

[[email protected]]

I am quite cognisant of the difference but often testing flights can become training flights - a struggling student who can't make the grade in some area or is using completely the wrong technique can be quickly rebriefed - whether or not you decide he passes that trip is a broad area for discretion, examination of his previous records, perhaps a chat with his primary/previous instructor.

Equally a training flight can become an assessment of ability/potential which may include the introduction of unbriefed elements.

Maybe the difference between the two HAS to be so rigidly defined in civil training and certainly at ab initio level I would agree entirely. But when you are dealing with experienced pilots then the rigidly enforced system can be relaxed.

If all I had done was test/train to the minimum requirement on SAR, few of those pilots woould have reached their full potential (safely) or increased their professional skill levels.

First and foremost you are creating a relationship between yourself and the student and the instructor has to be flexible in his approach and manner to get the best from the student and let the student gain the most from the sortie.

[500e]

Don,t pick on the boy
"student i was flying with has over 400 hours has done his CPL course in this country, failed his CPL skills test ( 3 times )". Change Student to Pilot
H500 got me to where I feel I have a chance of not killing myself or others.
Was 60 before I started to learn so not the best age & I never will be the best or most confident pilot, but I feel he gave me a good grounding as to what & how to cope in an situation that was not normal.
The engine tail rotor etc does not usually notify you in advance (S92) before it goes TU.
I feel that recurrent training can only be good & as long as I am put in no danger the training emergency is a good way for me to understand how I will cope.
Some one brought up the thought regarding private flyers\ work & where their head is, this I can agree with there were days when I would not fly due to my mind being on other things, may be age related

[[email protected]]

If you just pick an emergency at random in flight, there are only two possible outcomes, one is that it all goes according to plan, in which case it was a waste of flight time, or it doesn't go to plan in which case the PPL merely learns that he can't do something.No, if it goes to plan then you have confirmed the student knows the emergency and how to handle it - that is a big plus as far as I am concerned and you can praise him for it. If he messes it up (providing it is one he has been shown/practised before) then you make a learning point from it, highlight the indications/actions/remedy and then he has learned something - he has learned/relearned that one which he might not have fully understood before.

In each case the student learns - that is surely the point of the job of an instructor.

The only negative way of handling it is if you berate him for messing up the emergency and then make a big show of how clever you are at demonstrating the right way of doing it - that is negative teaching but it amazes me how many instructors don't seem to be able to tell the difference between instructing and destructing.

[HeliComparator]

No, if it goes to plan then you have confirmed the student knows the emergency and how to handle it - that is a big plus as far as I am concerned and you can praise him for it. If he messes it up (providing it is one he has been shown/practised before) then you make a learning point from it, highlight the indications/actions/remedy and then he has learned something - he has learned/relearned that one which he might not have fully understood before.

In each case the student learns - that is surely the point of the job of an instructor.

The only negative way of handling it is if you berate him for messing up the emergency and then make a big show of how clever you are at demonstrating the right way of doing it - that is negative teaching but it amazes me how many instructors don't seem to be able to tell the difference between instructing and destructing.
Yes if it goes to plan then of course you and he know he can do it. But that info seems pretty useless if, as was the case here, it is a bit of a one-off training flight. I would imagine that H500 was never going to be the PPL's CPL examiner and in fact probably, never fly with him again. So as I said, if he had done it correctly then the time was wasted. However since it seems H500 had a pretty good idea of the guy's likely competence beforehand, to not brief properly on what was to be done in flight was "setting him up to fail". Perhaps H500's agenda was to make the chap realise he should give up the aim of becoming a commercial pilot?

To randomly pick on something during a training flight with a pilot you're not familiar with, and then when you find the pilot can't cope, to attempt to rebrief in flight, is a really bad way to instruct. I hope you know this really and are just arguing with me for the sake of it. If not, you need refresher training on how to be a competent instructor.

[[email protected]]

To randomly pick on something during a training flight with a pilot you're not familiar with, and then when you find the pilot can't cope, to attempt to rebrief in flight, is a really bad way to instruct. No it's not - he gave the student a simulated emergency to see what he would do - the fact the student didn't have a clue was unfortunate but he might have been the same with any 'unbriefed emergency'. If you feel you can only initiate pre-briefed emergencies with a student, whether you know him or not, then you should look at your own instructional competence.

It may be the way it is done for OPC/LPC in the N Sea to tick boxes but for the real world where emergencies and problems don't come ready briefed it is a pretty poor show.

And I am arguing with you because you had the gall to pounce on Hughes500 and criticise his professional competence without knowing the context or any real details of the sortie. And I get criticised for being arrogant................

[HeliComparator]

And now I am going to criticise your professional competence too. You are clearly a bad instructor. You still fail to grasp the difference between running a training flight and a testing flight, which is as astonishing as it is depressing.

This thread has at least been useful since it has exposed why so many PPLs are crashing - there are a lot of bad instructors out there who have forgotten the basics of instructional technique. The sooner the old guard who have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing are put down, and new young instructors who can still remember what they were taught during instructor training come on stream, the better.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Crab. Nobody I know ticks boxes on the North Sea. In fact advocating a proper brief is completely different from the tick box rubbish that inexperienced civil pilots ( which is what you are) bleat on about.

I cannot really be bothered to waste anymore time trying to get you to drop that ridiculous gung-ho egotistical approach you have that seems to allow you to pretend you just throw what you like at your student, when you like, bugger the brief he should be man enough to cope cos he's got 500 hours.

It's a flipping joke and you know it. No instructor worth his pay:

1. Flys a practise critical failure in a real aircraft without briefing, both for training and testing.
2. Introduces a malfunction in a real aircraft without Clearly stating "For exercise, practice xx" to clearly distinguish between a practise and a real emergency. That by regulation MUST be briefed and in UK YOU WILL FAIL an Instructor and Examiner Assessment of Competence if you fail to give this brief both on the ground AND in the air.

In this context the utter rubbish you spout about how you ignore these basic rules and principles just makes me laugh knowing that YOU never behave like this during your own Instructor assessments.

I guess you do not have any civil Instructor Training or Examining ratings because if you did you would know that these things we spout on about are basic and fundamental. If you do you cannot behave the way you advocate on your own AoC because you would be failed by your Examiner especially for wilful disregard of the essential safety brief.

Too many accidents have occurred in training caused by exactly what you are advocating. Poor or inadequate brief, changing the scope of the flight once in the air, getting an unexpected response from a student to an unbriefed critical manoeuvre.

At my age and experience, which is reasonably extensive and diverse, I do not even introduce the auto exercise in flight without immediately beforehand asking the student to recall the brief he received and verbalise the essential actions-on and recovery altitudes. This mostly to prevent an expensive Nr exceedance which is more and more possible in modern rotor helicopters.

No doubt we will be treated to some more of your of the cuff training portfolio.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Crab - to answer your last post specifically:

NO - you cannot ever introduce an unbriefed Emergency procedure in a real aircraft.

You must clearly distinguish in flight the DIFFERENCE between REAL and PRACTISE/ SIMULATED emergencies in flight. This is normally done by convention by announcing "For Exercise....) even in the Army the QHIs followed this doctrine.

There is a difference between an EMERGENCY procedure and a MALFUNCTION.

In this case, TR jamming is, in my view, an Emergency procedure, as at the very end, it could lead to a crash if poorly handled.

Introducing critical failures with no warning provokes a "Startle effect" I get sick and tired of Instructors who believe provoking startle effect somehow leads to greater immunity from it. It does not. The only thing that does is knowledge (briefing...again) combined with logical progressive exposure to the symptoms. Building confidence in the core routines, followed by practise in slow time followed by introduction in various phases of flight. Exposure in controlled conditions Leading to high confidence and familiarity is the key to hardening us to startle effect. The FFS is great for this kind of training. It's definitely not box ticking.

Startling the student with an unbriefed, unannounced procedure just produces Startle effect. Doing this to a student who is already struggling, as in this case, is just a waste of fuel an totally unproductive.

[aa777888]

Throwing in a half pence from the student perspective:

I've had instructors that instruct the way Crab describes, and the way HC describes. I greatly prefer the way HC describes.

And I really despise instructors who spend time in the air explaining theory. I've got the theory, or should have, on the ground. In the air we need to make theory come out of fingers and toes. IMHO there are better, more direct, more physical ways to do that. Many times it's simply a matter of more rep's until those fingers and toes get calibrated.

That said, with respect to the "unannounced" factor, what I don't mind, in fact what I appreciate, are instructors who take basic maneuvers and start to add small challenges. For instance, they tell you to enter a straight in auto on runway X and, when you are established in your glide, tell you to put it on the other runway, etc. Little frills that up the ante, are based in real world possibilities, but that are not so far removed from current skill levels or the instructional plan for that flight as to completely surprise either student or instructor.

[krypton_john]

I'll never forget one in my early FW training. Downwind checks and I'm just making a pretense of checking the fuel selector is on. Eagle eyed FI spots it and switches it off just before the next one. Next thing engine is spluttering out. I quickly rechecked the selector, switched it back on and the windmilling old girl fired straight back up. Lesson learned and never forgotten.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Aa77888 thanks for your post. A voice of reason. I think your feelings are exactly right. Build skill on skill, developing confidence along the way.

For what it's worth I thing H500 had an OFF moment and as he subsequently explained, spent the rest of the sortie fixing the problem. Like you say in your post, I am sure the student, and H500 were wishing they had a white board in the helicopter during that process ( meaning they wish they had briefed)

As for Crab - he will argue the anti just for the hell if it. Come to think of it, so will I. The difference though is I am always right!

DB

[[email protected]]

What is laughable is that you have drawn a load of conclusions about how I instruct and how bad I am at it based on a couple of lines in a post and a whole lot of imagination. Just as you drew inaccurate conclusions to beat H500 round the head with.

Yes OF COURSE you tell the student it is a practice emergency - who do you think taught some of those Army QHIs to be QHIs in the first place? I wasn't a CFS tutor for no reason. - with the stuck pedals I would (and I'm sure H500 did) wait for the student to notice and then declare - this is a practice.

Did your diverse experience ever include instructing and examining other instructors, doing upgrades and checks on other instructors, doing examiner checks in other countries on their instructors????????

Much as you may wish to malign it - the CFS tick is a gold standard to many governments and Armed Forces around the world and a military A2 is a widely recognised standard of quality - whether you like it or not.

If you want to teach someone to suck eggs - go talk to your grandmother.

Where did the recent head of CAA heli exam train - oh yes the brit mil and it didn't seem to stop him did it?

This thread has been completely hijacked because you and HeliC wanted to show how great you are by demeaning the actions of H500- frankly you should be ashamed.

[HeliComparator]

What is laughable is that you have drawn a load of conclusions about how I instruct and how bad I am at it based on a couple of lines in a post and a whole lot of imagination. Just as you drew inaccurate conclusions to beat H500 round the head with.

Yes OF COURSE you tell the student it is a practice emergency - who do you think taught some of those Army QHIs to be QHIs in the first place? I wasn't a CFS tutor for no reason. - with the stuck pedals I would (and I'm sure H500 did) wait for the student to notice and then declare - this is a practice.

Did your diverse experience ever include instructing and examining other instructors, doing upgrades and checks on other instructors, doing examiner checks in other countries on their instructors????????

Much as you may wish to malign it - the CFS tick is a gold standard to many governments and Armed Forces around the world and a military A2 is a widely recognised standard of quality - whether you like it or not.

If you want to teach someone to suck eggs - go talk to your grandmother.

Where did the recent head of CAA heli exam train - oh yes the brit mil and it didn't seem to stop him did it?

This thread has been completely hijacked because you and HeliC wanted to show how great you are by demeaning the actions of H500- frankly you should be ashamed.
Yeabut what is REALLY laughable is that your post is such a "Don't you know who I am?!" sort of post! Chuckleworthy!

Anyway my experience of CFS is via the UAS in which I did my first 100hrs or so. Some of the instructors were really good, a few were grumpy old gits who when (as a really keen engineering student with an enquiring mind) I asked "why?" when told what was done, received the grumpy answer "just do it". One chap stood out as the best instructor, really patient, clear, friendly and got the best out of you by keeping you relaxed. But it was he who I had to accompany in a Bulldog up to CFS HQ for his chop ride as he had for some reason fallen out of favour with them. Fortunately they passed his chop ride but at that young point in my aviation career I realised CFS was not quite as clever as they told everyone they were.

[tistisnot]

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "For Exercise".

Good shot!!

More Pythonesque by the post .... An unbeliever ..... kill the heretic!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CEAB the answer to your question is.......YES!

[[email protected]]

Yeabut what is REALLY laughable is that your post is such a "Don't you know who I am?!" sort of post! Chuckleworthy! as opposed to yours which say'I'm great, you know nothing and you are a crap instructor'.

Not chuckleworthy but rather embarrassing to slag off those you don't know (but somehow imagine you completely understand) and make yourself look pompous and self-righteous peering down from an ivory tower to cast aspersions on the unworthy (in your blinkered view anyway).

Please note that all the slagging of professional competency has gone one way only - in order to do that you must consider yourself top of the pile - (then you call me arrogant).

DB, yes to what? Or are you being deliberately vague?

[Hughes500]

Think I have started something I shown't have done here. For those who want to beat me that is fine. I will stand by the way I carried out the flight. I am not going to go over old ground other than to say the student / pilot/ whatever you want to call him I do know and have helped him a lot ( over 8 years ) and his words after the sortie and at the end of a 30 minute debrief were " i really enjoyed that and learnt an awful lot thank you "
I rest my case and lets close this before people get too personal

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 you have a very good reputation and I am sure you fixed the guy in the end. Sorry if I was a bit harsh.

CRAB Yes I do Instruct and check TRIs and TREs. I am glad to see you have almost capitulated and almost accepted that the essential safety briefs should be there which of course would include critical failures especially those in the Helicopter involving flight control degradation.

It may come across to you as us being pompous, but actually we are just compliant with the requirements of our authorisations and I know HC very well and he is or was, as he is resting pretending to be retired, 100% committed to giving good training.

You are a bit of a wind up merchant and it may seem I take the bait every time. However, given your background and reputation I feel you would do better on this forum to peddle a more conservative compliant view. Your are influential and that carries responsibility. Even on this forum.

It is for this reason I feel compelled to pull you back from gung ho city back to compliant land, even if it takes a while.

[[email protected]]

DB - I have pointed out that I meet compliance rules and regs that are every bit as demanding in the mil as they are outside. My emphasis is that a good instructor must be flexible in his approach to each student and that rigid adherence to a prescribed format doesn't always get the best out of every student.

I used to emphasise that the QHI course was a method of instruction, not a legislative process that couldn't be adapted to differing situations/students/instructors.

You impose your personality on the method of instruction basic techniques and adapt those basics to suit the subject/discipline/level of student that you are teaching.

It isn't rocket science but neither is it easy or formulaic - it requires, empathy, intelligence, flexibility and selflessness.

[HeliComparator]

I know HC very well and he is or was, as he is resting pretending to be retired, 100% committed to giving good training.


Hmmm well I'm definitely a better instructor now I've retired - it is so easy to instruct well from one's armchair! (although I do still do real instructing in gliders).

My sort of roundabout point is that when fully immersed in the day job, it is easy to lose sight of the fundamentals, and that is why this thread has been good - apart from the Crab bashing which is always fun, it may have given some other instructors pause for thought to consider whether they are following best practice. If so, it was worth the collateral damage to poor Crab and H500's egos!

[Ennio]

Time for a group hug. ��

[[email protected]]

My sort of roundabout point is that when fully immersed in the day job, it is easy to lose sight of the fundamentalsNo, not when your day job is full-time instruction - those fundamentals are always at the back of your mind underpinning how you get the best from your student.

If your student is a PPLH then you will keep to the syllabus and ensure thorough briefing and constructive debriefing - if your student is a professional pilot (civ or mil) you expect more from him/her and can present more challenging scenarios, kept pertinent to their experience and ambitions.

If your student is a front-line mil pilot then you have to ensure they are up to the mark since the enemy (whether that be weather or incoming rounds) won't give them a second go with a sympathetic debrief.

Basic instruction is basic instruction but often that spoon-fed, cuddly stuff needs to be altered for more advanced levels. You still need to put the student first but you do them no favours by wrapping them in cotton wool - and most experienced pilots won't respect you if you try to treat them like a basic student.

When HC declares that he might actually have been wrong to jump on H500 (my skin is very thick so I don't need apologies) then we can consider the group hug.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - have been on the drama pills?

You can't' mix up tactical military flying with instructing malfunctions and emergencies for a CPL candidate!

You would not take your military guy on tactical training until all the basic and advanced handling skills are in place. Also in the military there is far more scope for GH and practice than in civvy street or have not yet noticed if you tumbled straight into a full time instructional position.

We are talking about BRIEFING for training sorties. Not tactical Training. NOT LOFT training. Just basic skill building for malfunctions and emergencies.

Were you in "Nam" or something?

[FC80]

Well it means that military trained pilots generally have one less means of killing themselves and their passengers, in that they have demonstrated flying aptitude. It doesn't mean there are no stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous military pilots out there, of course there are. It just means that while they are being stupid, arrogant, wilful or just plain dangerous they are probably fully in control of the aircraft with the requisite situational awareness. The same rule applies of course to the civilian trained pilots who also have the requisite level of flying aptitude, they have just never been formally tested for it.

Two's in - I don't agree with that at all.

I've flown with plenty of excellent military pilots and a handful of utterly useless ones. Exactly the same as civilians funnily enough. It's almost like we're all just human and passing military selection does not grant someone the divine gift of SA or aircraft handling ability at all times.

:suspect:

[[email protected]]

EC80 - you are exactly right, there is no divine gift of brilliance - it's just some aptitude, hard work and good, progressive instruction. But still some will f**k up on both sides of the coin.

DB, I think you are being deliberately obtuse - you and HC criticised my style of instruction and I was just trying to highlight that my style of instruction changes depending on who I am instructing - its that flexibility thing I mentioned earlier. If you have as varied an instructional background as you claim, you would know this already.

Out of interest, are the TREs/TRIs you check and instruct FIs (ie QHIs)?

If you apply EXACTLY the same instructional style and format to all students, whether they have 10 hours or 10,000, you will not be getting the best out of them no matter how 'correctly and by the book' you are doing it.

Perhaps the pair of you have realised you have made a bit of a mess of this thread with your insults and condemnations and are trying to mask it with some 'crab-bashing' or 'crab-baiting' - good luck with that but there is a saying about stopping digging when you are in a hole.

[HeliComparator]

Perhaps the pair of you have realised you have made a bit of a mess of this thread with your insults and condemnations and are trying to mask it with some 'crab-bashing' or 'crab-baiting' - good luck with that but there is a saying about stopping digging when you are in a hole.

Insults? No, not unless you consider being told you are going about things the wrong way is a de facto insult.

Condemnations? Mostly have come out of your own mouth. Perhaps you are indeed a better instructor than it appears from this thread but unfortunately I only have what you say on here to go on. As it is you have done much to remind me and reinforce why I sometimes seem anti-mil. Note to self: I must remember that they come in all shapes, sizes and competencies!

[[email protected]]

Insults? No, not unless you consider being told you are going about things the wrong way is a de facto insult. No, it is the way you have done it that makes the difference - pontificating from your ivory tower how others should and shouldn't do their job (in your opinion) as if you have absolute say is what is insulting.

Perhaps this is how you advocate instructing and debriefing in your world - your students must have absolutely loved you for that.

I can't see how trying to explain how instruction can be done in demanding roles is condemnation - perhaps your prejudices against mil pilots just go too deep - no skin off my nose, I still have a day job where my instructional skills are highly valued (I'm sure against all your beliefs to the contrary).

Perhaps you just haven't got a wide enough experience of instructional roles to appreciate my points.

[HeliComparator]

No, it is the way you have done it that makes the difference - pontificating from your ivory tower how others should and shouldn't do their job (in your opinion) as if you have absolute say is what is insulting.

Perhaps this is how you advocate instructing and debriefing in your world - your students must have absolutely loved you for that.

I can't see how trying to explain how instruction can be done in demanding roles is condemnation - perhaps your prejudices against mil pilots just go too deep - no skin off my nose, I still have a day job where my instructional skills are highly valued (I'm sure against all your beliefs to the contrary).

Perhaps you just haven't got a wide enough experience of instructional roles to appreciate my points.
We could go on all night I suppose, but pantomime season is over I think. Personally I am quite happy to be judged by my peers on my contribution to this thread and I would imagine you likewise, so let us allow the masses to judge us!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB I have not pontificated or tried to force my opinion. I have just pointed out the legal and guidance material that determines how we are mandated to conduct our business.

To answer your direct question I an not an FI nor was I a QHI, only TRI and TRE so I concede ab-ignitio training is not in my field of experience. That's ok. It means that I am probably more inclined to rely on the rules and guidance than maybe your wider experience compels you to do. However, I have written more FTO manuals and syllabi than I really care to recall. Funny enough every syllabus had to have a complete and comprehensive brief FOR EVERY EXERCISE. So you can carry on about flexibility blah blah but there is nothing in the course syllabi that permits you to fly sorties without briefing. Period.

If you like I can start quoting EASA-FCL exactly in this respect.

Now vent at the head all you like at me but please note I did not write the regulations but I did write many courses, delivered some, based on those regulations AND I am very happy and lucky to believe in the regs and the system AND it has always worked for m.

Having said all that, reading your posts, I think you confuse INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE AND TECHNIQUE with the CONDUCT OF TRAINING. I know that you know these are separate things.

Furthermore you seem to imply that because your style and technique is so brilliant you can stick two fingers up to everyone else's opinion.

Above all a few "victims" of your implied "style" have posted here already making it clear your approach, as you describe it is.....well.....suboptimal!

[[email protected]]

Well, I thought that HC's last post was a suitable place to leave this thread but you don't seem to be able to drop it.

So, we have established you are not a qualified flying instructor but feel you can lecture me about how to instruct and also assume that a couple of people who have had bad experiences with poor instructors somehow taint me by association.

I too have written plenty of instructional manuals and seen how 'educators' insist that every exercise has training objectives, enabling objectives and a massive list of stuff you are supposed to cover - that is lovely but all they have done is put into print what experienced instructors have done for years in the air.

It serves a legal purpose an in theory provides an audit trail so I get that completely - what it is NOT, is a replacement for a good instructor who can relate to, relax and inform his student - we call it creating a learning environment but you won't find how to do that in EASA rules and regs.

I always worry about those who are happy to quote rules and regs ad infinitum and to only do things strictly in accordance with 'the book' - it implies a lack of imagination, individuality, flexibility and character.

It's not sticking two fingers up to be creative in how you develop your student's abilities as long as you remember the basic guidelines. Handrails - not handcuffs - is how I have had it described before and it is a good analogy.

I hope that anyone who can be bothered to read this far in the thread can see that my emphasis is always on the benefit of the student, not rules, regs or rigid formulaic instructional methods. You don't put your student at risk, you don't frighten him/her but you do need to stretch their comfort zone sometimes to make them understand what a helicopter can do and what people can do with the helicopter.

It's all about the students and every good instructor should understand that and have it as a guiding principle.

The symbol of CFS is a Pelican, pecking its own breast to feed its children - that is the relationship of the instructor to the student - you give everything you have to make them better.

It's not a job, it's a vocation.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB you asked me a Question. I answered it. That's why I posted.

I am not really sure you realise what the "I" in "TRI" stands for. It means "Instructor". I am also SFI, SFE and TRE. The CAA tells me I am "Qualified" to hold these ratings and authorisations.

Now I know there is a difference between FI and TRI in their privileges. However the core elements, especially Part-01, teaching and learning, are the same. Instructing MPIFR on a heavy helicopter I would suspect is every bit as challenging as Instruction a student on an R22. However having not done both I will give the FI the benifit of the doubt!

So I am not sure what your idea of a "proper" Instructor is but as always CRAB you only play to your own strengths. SAR, FI, MILITARY blah blah blah.

In so far as your intimation that I am somehow a less capable Instructor because I follow the rules and try to remain within the guidelines laid down by the Authority who issues my Licence and TRE/TRE authorisations this simply does not make any sense at all.

I believe again you are confusing "Training Style and Techniques" with the "Conduct of Training".

As for the "Pelican" logo I really like that analogy. However if the Instructor is giving everything he has to progress the student.....and you believe that.....why do you argue against the principle of Flight Briefings prior to flying critical exercises in the actual Helicopter.

why do you believe that those of us who ALSO follow your Pelican analogy don't qualify in your eyes. Is it a CFS Hero thing or simply because you were a CRAB, which of course in my eyes, being a Pongo, automatically means you are pompous and use a lot of brill-cream.

I agree with all you say about instructing techniques, not frightening the student but stretching his consort zone. I get all that. However, this discussion started as follows:

An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.

YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario.

Can you please explain WHY you believe the actions of the Instructor were OK.?

I would really appreciate an answer that sticks to the facts not some rambling post telling us how great you are, which, by the way, I am sure is true!

DB

[Phone Wind]

HC, crab, and DB have collectively hijacked this thread. I suggest one of them starts a new one called something like 'Battle of the Massive Egos', because that's all it is now.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Phone Wind you are right and I apologise. No more from me.

[HeliComparator]

HC, crab, and DB have collectively hijacked this thread. I suggest one of them starts a new one called something like 'Battle of the Massive Egos', because that's all it is now.
No, it was hijacked when folk, who knew nothing about the people involved, decided that the crashery was all down to young and inexperienced instructors.

[Hughes500]

HC
Not sure anything was hijacked , it is just how forums go and move on, having said that this one has got a bit out of control, but good fun though! Interesting differences of approach to things, but we all live and learn from these things which is why this is such a valuable forum as long as we don't get too personal !

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 I good post. I am grateful you did not take our critique too personal!

[HeliComparator]

H500 I think (hope) that your comment triggering the "debate" was just a throw away line that came back to bite you, so you back pedalled a bit to give a more thorough account of what happened. Which is fine of course. Our problem is that when we see something "bad" posted, even as a throw-away line probably without much thought behind it, we can either choose to ignore it hence tacitly approve it, or we can point out the problem and give the better alternatives. Sorry but I don't regret doing the latter! Anyway as I said earlier, it is good to air these things because all of us (except the perfect Crab) can drift into bad practice over a period of time, if no-one tells us not to.

[Hughes500]

HC

the problem with a forum is putting down everything from a briefing without boring everyone with 10 sides of A4 (not me back-pedalling). Having said that there is obviously 2 distinct opinions of how to look at emergencies/ malfunctions call them what you will.
One side of the argument appears that if you are testing then yes brief as to who has control/throttle etc etc, the other being what the emergency will be (or have I misread you) and where you are going to do it. Yes I rolled a revision exercise into a general handling / emergency session as I was asked to do (to try and help keep the pilots cost down). Quite frankly it is wrong to tell the pilot before hand that I am going to do an engine failure or gearbox warning light or whatever, he should be capable of doing these (yes even a ppl) off pat/automatic reaction. If you are flying twin pilot machine with a big checklist then fair enough, but not a light single. I would have it that the basic emergencies / malfunctions should be off pat these to include engine failure/tr issues/smoke in the cockpit/vortex ring/gearbox warning lights/electrical failure.
My life was probably made a lot less unpleasant by an instructor who used to throttle chop the machine every so often. It made me very aware of flying defensively and not taking things for granted. So when a 300 engine stopped on me at 100 ft 30 kts coming back into land the reaction was automatic, landed with only a bent cross beam. Not sure practice engine failure 3 ,2 ,1 go would have helped, as I can assure you it is nothing close to reality

Looks like we are going to differ on these but lets not bother wasting any more time on this thread as we have done it to death (and no I do not have a big ego, ask people I have flown with). Have I learnt things from this, yes !

[HeliComparator]

HC

the problem with a forum is putting down everything from a briefing without boring everyone with 10 sides of A4( not me back-pedalling ). Having said that there is obviously 2 distinct opinions of how to look at emergencies/ malfunctions call them what you will.
One side of the argument appears that if you are testing then yes brief as to who has control / throttle etc etc, the other being what the emergency will be ( or have I misread you) and where you are going to do it. Yes I rolled a revision exercise into a general handling / emergency session as I was asked to do( to try and help keep the pilots cost down ) Quite frankly it is wrong to tell the pilot before hand that I am going to do an engine failure or gearbox warning light or whatever, he should be capable of doing these ( yes even a ppl)off pat/ automatic reaction. If you are flying twin pilot machine with a big checklist then fair enough, but not a light single. I would have it that the basic emergencies / malfunctions should be off pat these to include engine failure/tr issues/smoke in the cockpit/vortex ring/gearbox warning lights/electrical failure.
My life was probably made a lot less unpleasant by an instructor who used to throttle chop the machine every so often. It made me very aware of flying defensively and not taking things for granted. So when a 300 engine stopped on me at 100 ft 30 kts coming back into land the reaction was automatic, landed with only a bent cross beam. Not sure practice engine failure 3 ,2 ,1 go would have helped, as I can assure you it is nothing close to reality

Looks like we are going to differ on these but lets not bother wasting any more time on this thread as we have done it to death ( and no I do not have a big ego , ask people I have flown with) . Have I learnt things from this, yes !
Sorry I didn't mean "back pedalling" to be a deprecating term. "Filling in the gaps" would have been better.

Anyway I think there is a fundamental difference between training for an engine failure in a single, and something like stuck pedals. With the former, it is a matter of quick reactions and so once the principle of what to do is covered, repeating the excercise at unexpected times does of course have merit. But with something like stuck pedals where there is not such a sense of urgency, on a training flight it is better done having reviewed the excercise in the classroom first.

My piano teacher used to tell me that "practising" was only accomplished when the piece was played correctly. If it was incorrectly played it didn't count. And thus it is with flying - flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand.

[Hughes500]

HC

Couldn't agree more with your piano teacher I was just shocked that someone who has done a load of training has never been shown a quite common test issue. However all is well now as he knows what to do,
so another happy punter
Safe flying in the armchair

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500, I like very much your arguments about not announcing failures. Both HC and myself have been lucky that we were able to do just that in an FFS, thus completely mitigating the safety issue. I think that is one of the reasons EASA-FCL requires recurrent training and checks to be done in the FFS. I sympathise with the smaller helicopter world where this is not available.

Having said that, training in the FFS will never build the same degree of confidence as doing it in the Helicopter. What you are doing, pound for pound, is ultimately probably more beneficial for the student than the FFS, accepting of course, that the aircraft is limited in the failures you can reproduce.

A big respect from me for your honesty and the positive approach you have taken from what at times, has been harsh critique from me. I would like to be trained by you! I don't ever say that lightly.

[[email protected]]

Can't quite let this cobblers go unanswered flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand. HC I presume you are not a FI either from this statement.

An exercise is briefed on the ground, demonstrated in the air and then the student has a go - what are the chances of him perfectly flying the manoeuvre? Somewhere between nil and bugger-all.

So now the real skill of the instructor - the fault analysis - begins, where you identify what wasn't correct (and praise what was) then give corrective guidance (or if required another demonstration) then the student has another go - that process continues until the student has reached the required standard. It is often poor control action, poor trimming technique or simply looking in the wrong place for the attitude/speed/height/power etc.

In an ideal world, you want the student to begin to self-debrief because if he realises what mistakes he has made it is much easier for him to avoid them the next time (however the instructor will still need to fine tune the corrective process).

The idea that only perfect reproductions of an exercise are valuable when learning is total fallacy - I learned to play the piano by making mistakes and then having them corrected and latterly by recognising them myself.

What I think your piano teacher meant was that, one a skill is learned correctly, the repetition of that exercise/skill is positive reinforcement and therefore a good thing.

But with something like stuck pedals where there is not such a sense of urgency, on a training flight it is better done having reviewed the excercise in the classroom first. if the student has been taught this before then it is perfectly fine to introduce it unbriefed - if he asks for a lesson on TR malfs then of course you would brief it on the ground before hand. You just don't seem to get the context in which H500 was operating.

An Instructor described taking a student on a sortie, the aim of which was to develop VOR skills, the Instructor told the student during briefing that they may do some malfunctions. He did not brief the malfunctions and therefore, arguably, compromised the requirement for essential safety brief. During the flight student was behind the aircraft so to wake him up the pedals were simulated seized down 100 feet of the ground despite the student admitting by 500 feet he had no idea how to land the helicopter.

YOU robustly defended that Instructor. Given all the sound and healthy teaching and learning principles you state you follow, buried in the Crab-Rhetoric of your posts, how can you rationalise now this scenario. Firstly, the student asked for GH revision and simulated emergencies - it was REVISION and so he should be expected to deal with whatever was given without pre-briefing (remember he was going for CPL again shortly, do they brief every practice emergency on the check ride?

Secondly, although the primary part of the sortie wasn't so hot, it is possible to recover the student's self confidence by giving him another exercise to do (practice stuck pedals) - if he does it well there is something positive for the debrief. It didn't work out that way but sometimes the student just has a bad day and you have to drag what positives you can out of the sortie to keep his morale up and (commercially) make him want to come back for more.

Giving the student time to consider the stuck pedals during the approach is fine - there was nothing unsafe as it wasn't real and H500 could have taken his feet off at any time. Again - CONTEXT - not a basic student but someone going for CPL to fly commercially should at least have an idea of what to do if not the fully finessed technique to a smooth landing. What would have happened on his check ride if the examiner had given him that - instant fail I suggest. What about if it happened to him for real on a commercial job with pax???

H500 did him a big favour for either scenario - he identified a big gap in his knowledge/retention and I suspect fully rebriefed him on the ground. On the next sortie with this chap, I would have revised the emergency and got him to fly the same approach to landing but now with the correct technique.

At some stage during training, ESPECIALLY when you are preparing a student for a check ride, you have to test them, unbriefed, because that is what will happen on the check and that is what happens in real life.

If neither of you can see my viewpoint then you really don't have the wide range of instructional experience that you think - Of my total flying, just short of 4000 hours are instructional time in a very wide variety of roles and conditions but you will surely see that as bragging rather than stating facts.

I suspect many fully civilian FIs would be horrified to hear you claim a TRI ticket was equivalent to a FI course pass - just how much demonstration flying and fault analysis do you do on a TRI course?

I suspect neither of you do any general handling (basic and advanced transitions, quickstops, basic and advanced autos, PFLS etc etc) instruction of the type that has been my bread and butter since I did my QHI course and is what a FI will have done on his FI course - it is also what you are critiquing H500 for.

Type rating instruction in a FFS (and yes, I have done that as well) is a completely different kettle of fish but the same principles apply - in my world it is something only a QHI/FI would deliver.

[HeliComparator]

Crab,

1/ I am not an FI on helicopters but I have a lot of experience of ab initio flying training, and a fair bit of instructor training and testing.

2/ I never said a TRI ticket was equivalent to an FI course pass. You are making it up.

I'll agree that the amount of basic instructional technique on a TRI course is pretty minimal - fortunately I had my instructional background to fall back on.

3/ You have 4000 hours of something. So what? I know folk with 15,000hrs who were not very good pilots. Perhaps you have 4000 hrs of doing it very badly - who knows?

4/ Your comprehension of written language seems limited. I said that when practising a manoeuvre one should try to maximise the number of times it was carried out correctly. That is not the same thing that you imply - that it should be perfect first time. Obviously that is unlikely to be the case. My point is that it is the instructor's job to help the student get it right. Presenting the student with an exercise you don't know if he can do and which in fact he doesn't know how to do, is unhelpful for any purpose other than crushing him.

5/ Yes unannounced checking of ability to perform an excercise is part of preparation for testing, but only in a controlled environment where you are familiar with the student's status. Randomly carrying it out on a PPL who is struggling is not helpful.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB

STUDENT-01 - gets a comprehensive brief on TR malfunctions, including symptoms, diagnosis, considerations and procedures backed up with the essential safety brief. Has a coffee, goes flying, sees an expert demo, has his own goes at the exercise during which the instructor encourages him to recall elements of the brief where necessary to improve his performance.

STUDENT-02 - receives a brief on VOR navigation as he has asked for, receives no brief on the TR malfunction, has a coffee, goes flying and struggles a bit with the VOR. Instructor thinks, I know we will do something different (for all the good reasons and is a good thing to do if the current exercise is not progressing without a rebriefing) however the exercise the FI chooses just bombs with the student from the outset, so much so he fails to even realise the intention behind the instructor placing his feet on the pedals. Actually asks him to remove them. In the dynamic environment of an approach then loses the plot and can't remember how to deal with the malfunction.

THE QUESTION FOR YOU setting aside the good intentions of the Instructor. DO you believe if Student-02 had the brief that Student-01 received, he would have gained more or less for the money he spent on his flying?

Finally, if you truly believe that every experienced pilot should be capable of managing a TR malfunction without briefing and practice beforehand, can you please explain why the Authority specify this briefing and training in the OPC cycle.

Bear in mind, before you answer, that the poor PPL is not afforded this training before his LPC unless he is wise enough to ask and pay for it.

Sadly if he asked you, or worse, was dumb enough just to pay you, he might not get a brief and in your own time you will tut tut at his **** performance and be back ranting here about how all pilots shall manage these malfunctions without briefing or training and this why we are all crashing.

In a rather clumsy roundabout way you have accidentally described exactly WHAT is wrong in the GA world that leads to lack of training and accidents.

Try preaching "oh yes, you need frequent recurrent training just to stay competent" instead of trying to tell us that he should not need training cos he should be able to do all the malfunctions otherwise what happens if the enemy appear and start shooting at him in a cloud, up on a Sunday, and he will die.

If you really are a great Instructor you should be promoting the very need for your existence.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - you ask the question - do they BRIEF every exercise on the check ride.

This is EXAMINING you are talking about. The Examiner, during the brief which should follow the very strict guidelines in the Examiners Handbook and/or STDS Doc 24 H, should establish an environment conducive to a successful test.

Part of that requirement involves, by Q and A session establishing if the candidate understands the exercises to be performed. The Examiner MUST give him the exercise list. This is not a training brief and could lead to the Test/Check not even being performed if the candidate demonstrates he is not ready/adequately prepared for the Test.

If done in the aircraft, an essential safety brief must be given. This will naturally entail responsibilities, call outs and by necessity, an agreement of exactly what the student intend to to for each CRITICAL procedure.

Once flying, clear guidelines are in place to allow the Examiner latitude to retest an item in flight. Essentially, if the candidates does not demonstrate competency on the first attempt, providing he can self diagnose his mistakes, he gets a second attempt. However the Examiner is permitted further latitude for certain emergencies like autos, to offer some guidance to improve attempt number 2. Now does this sound familiar to you? Of course it does because this appears, from your own posts, how you train and instruct.

Unfortunately what I am describing is TESTING.

A Question for you, are you an authorised FE, TRE or SFE?

[[email protected]]

HC you wroteMy piano teacher used to tell me that "practising" was only accomplished when the piece was played correctly. If it was incorrectly played it didn't count. And thus it is with flying - flying a training exercise incorrectly just reinforces the mistake and drains confidence, whereas flying it correctly builds confidence and "burns the right neural pathways". So it is better to be fairly sure the excercise will be flown correctly and this is best done by briefing thoroughly on the ground beforehand. so you have the first statement from your piano teacher which is correct if it is a piece/skill that has been correctly taught and mastered - thereafter correct repetition of the exercise builds muscle memory/neural pathways.

Your second statement about flying training is selective since the student must learn the technique/manoeuvre first which will inevitably involve making mistakes - that is the way it works, as you seem to agree.

Only being 'fairly sure' by asking questions on the ground is far from the guarantee that the student will perform perfectly and therefore reinforce his training - you will only know that when he has performed. It is not representative of the real world to expect answering questions on the ground to correlate to performance in the air, one is a test of memory, the other is a physically and mentally complex task.

I said that when practising a manoeuvre one should try to maximise the number of times it was carried out correctly.read your paragraph above - that is not what you said.

Presenting the student with an exercise you don't know if he can do and which in fact he doesn't know how to do, is unhelpful for any purpose other than crushing him.You are assuming that H500 didn't have any knowledge of the student's history - also he must have covered the stuck pedals because it is in the syllabus. It doesn't 'crush' the student to make a mistake - as I said before you take any positives from it and build his confidence with extra training.
5/ Yes unannounced checking of ability to perform an excercise is part of preparation for testing, but only in a controlled environment where you are familiar with the student's status. Randomly carrying it out on a PPL who is struggling is not helpful. As discussed, he was known to H500 and he was a CPL trained (albeit failed) so struggling PPL is just an emotive description you have invented to make your point.

DB THE QUESTION FOR YOU setting aside the good intentions of the Instructor. DO you believe if Student-02 had the brief that Student-01 received, he would have gained more or less for the money he spent on his flying? No, because the sortie was for VOR training and GH/emergencies - the brief required to cover all available scenarios would have taken days. If the student had asked for a dedicated TR malfunctions sortie then I am sure that is exactly what H500 would have given him - but that wasn't what he asked and paid for. Frankly a bit of a pointless question.

Part of that requirement involves, by Q and A session establishing if the candidate understands the exercises to be performed. The Examiner MUST give him the exercise list. This is not a training brief and could lead to the Test/Check not even being performed if the candidate demonstrates he is not ready/adequately prepared for the Test. Yes that covers the exercises and is eminently sensible since the examiner must be sure tyhe student has completed the required training. However that doesn't answer the question about practice emergencies - certainly the brief in the event of real emergencies must be included plus how the examiner will announce a practice emergency but, other than a fire which ISTR is mandatory and therefore expected, will the examiner tell the student what practice emergencies he will initiate?

Finally, if you truly believe that every experienced pilot should be capable of managing a TR malfunction without briefing and practice beforehand, can you please explain why the Authority specify this briefing and training in the OPC cycle. Duh - the mandated briefing and training is to make sure that experienced pilots can manage a TR malfunction - that is the whole point. H500 was essentially checking that the student knew the drill - he had after all attempted CPL before so must have completed the training more than once - the fact that he didn't know the drill just pointed the way forward for the next sortie - revision of TR malfs and maybe more VOR after that.

Once flying, clear guidelines are in place to allow the Examiner latitude to retest an item in flight. Essentially, if the candidates does not demonstrate competency on the first attempt, providing he can self diagnose his mistakes, he gets a second attempt. However the Examiner is permitted further latitude for certain emergencies like autos, to offer some guidance to improve attempt number 2. Now does this sound familiar to you? Of course it does because this appears, from your own posts, how you train and instruct. I didn't say I instruct this way on all sorties - that is your skewed perspective on the different types of flight I described in earlier posts, from basic student to front-line pilot and I thought it was crystal clear that they would be conducted differently.

I am not a civilian authorised anything but I have been a senior examiner for many years as well as an IRE conducting procedural IRTs (mil IR) and a flight and squadron training officer and a CFS agent. Most of that won't mean much to you but it is the mil equivalent of your FE, TRE and SFE.

This really is getting very tedious as you both seem to want to deny any instructional skills on my part personally or the military generally.

You go and do it your way and I will carry on doing it mine - we will just have to agree to differ but I won't slag off someone like H500 just because he posts something that isn't 100% the way I think it should be done, especially if I don't know him or the context in which he is doing his job - something you both seem happy to do.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Ahh, you are not an EASA authorised Instructor or Examiner. And yet you have spent countless posts telling us how to do it. Military style!

Unbelievabubble!

Just so you get some idea what civvy street is really like. I put my hand up to be a TRE(H). It took the best part of 2 years from the start of my training to get the Authorisation. First CRMI, followed by six months on the line settling down. Then TRI course. In total, including the mentoring, about 6 months. Six more months settling down in that role. Then came the TRE Stanadardisation course, I think 3 weeks in total including standardisation. 10 seupervised checks. 5 mentored Checks. Took about 4 months followed finally by the Authorisation. I CHECKED MY LOG. THE TOTAL HOURS SPENT TRAINING TRI AUTH 86 AND CHECKING BEFORE TRE Authorisation, 226. That's a lot more intensive than the FI course.

I am sure you will retort with some smart Alec response to that but don't think that a heavy helicopter TRI/TRE is handed out Like sweets.

I was laughing at your lack of understanding of the depth and complexity involved in modern civilian CAT training. Now I know why. You think you know it all but many of us have been on both sides, mil and civvy unlike you.

Can you even imagine what you would feel like if a Civilian Instructor tried to tell you how you should have done your job in the Military. Can you even comprehend what you have done on this thread.

A man with no formal qualifications in iCivilian life telling everyone with those qualifications how we should be doing our jobs. Mocking the status of the TRI having absolutely NO IDEA what it involves. Ho ho ho what a joke.


now I have nothing more to say especially as your warped logic can't infest our civvy system Just yet.

DB out

[HeliComparator]

DB I don't think we need worry, Crab has fully briefed and demonstrated to the entire forum his way of doing things and will be judged by his peers. So our work here is done!

[FlimsyFan]

I will now admit that I don't know what quite a few of your acronyms stand for.

Somehow glad I'm just a lowly PPL with a day job.

All in all, makes me think my instructor struck a really good balance :-)

[[email protected]]

Oh dear DB, now who is on a FIGJAM ego runaway (F88k I'm Good Just Ask Me).

I won't bore you with a list of the hundereds of check rides I have done to confirm my abilities as a QHI nor the extensive range of subjects and disciplines I have taught.

You seem very happy to criticise how Flying Instruction is done when you haven't actually done it yourself and are not qualified to do so - therefore I know exactly what it feels like to be told to suck eggs by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Anyway, end of transmission - I am off skiing in the sunshine again today :)

[Hughes500]

DB

You are always welcome for a chat and coffee / beer depending on time of day if ever in Dunkeswell Devon, as any of you are actually !

[roundwego]

Hughes 500. That's a very magnanimous invitation. You could get all three of them together for a group hug ��

Just make sure there is a video camera on the wall so we can all be entertained.

[Hughes500]

Round

If nothing else we all having something to learn from these discussions however heated they sometimes get. We are all helicopter pilots !

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - I think if you check all my post I don't claim to be good or bad at fulfilling the functions of mt Licence and Authorisations.

I hope I have demonstrated that I do have a reasonable grasp of the rules and guidelines I am compelled to follow. That's a completely different thing.

H500 thanks for the invite and be sure I will take you up on it. The same applies to you. We are in Malta. The only a helicopter AOC here. It's an interesting place. We do EMS at the moment but probably expanding soon into O&G and some PAX work. If you fancy a cheap holiday we will host and look after you.

For your original post I can probably see how it happened as I described above. The poor guys struggles with the briefed exercise so to decompress you lighten the mood and change the plan and on that occasion it initially didnt work out.

Like I said, as TRIs in the heavy world we are better off with the FFS for this but difficult for you in the smaller world. I always say, the most affordable segment of helicopter aviation is generally in most respects the most difficult to deliver.

It's been a good discussion though and surely CRAB is an excellent instructor in his current world. If we could get him to buy into the CAT system a little bit more we we would all benefit more from his contribution. Just my opinion.

DB

[MOSTAFA]

DB purely out of interest what heavy's? do you TRI on in Malta?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Mostafa also TRI/TRE on AS332/EC225 but not based in Malta for this. Here I do B412.

[[email protected]]

It was another great day's skiing in glorious sunshine and pretty decent snow in the French Alps again by the way:ok:

H500 - might just surprise you with a visit to Dunkeswell sometime:)

DB and HC - an interesting debate with no real solution:(

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

HI CRAB - I would swap your skiing for me siting here ploughing through work and distracting myself with PPRUNE. I spent 10 days in Whistler at NY and it was awesome. Skiing from lift open until lift closed. Cold though with some days at -20 I am jealous!

Where are you by the way?

[[email protected]]

St Jean D'Aulpes so access to whole of Porte de Soleil ski area.

[Hughes500]

Crab

What is the snow like, should be over in 9 day time to Morzine ?

[[email protected]]

It definitely needs another dump but there is some forecast for next week so you should be OK. We did one day at Morzine via the Pleny car park/lift and it was OK but getting thin/icy in places. It is surprisingly busy given that it is 'low season' so the popular places like Avoriaz get skied out quickly - the best snow was over towards the Swiss border.

Last day today but more sunshine and no wind;)

[RINKER]

Sorry for the ski report thread drift guys.
But I've been in Les Gets all week next to Morzine and had great snow and weather but now completely concur with what Crab says.

Happy flying.

R

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

completely concur with what Crab says


He won't be happy with that ;)

[206 jock]

St Jean D'Aulpes so access to whole of Porte de Soleil ski area.

Just to redress the balance, I take exception to Crab's definition of 'access'. Implying that St Jean d'Aulps (sp) is connected to the Portes Du Soleil is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I'm really not happy.




For sake of clarity...:)

[FlimsyFan]

Just to redress the balance, I take exception to Crab's definition of 'access'. Implying that St Jean d'Aulps (sp) is connected to the Portes Du Soleil is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I'm really not happy.




For sake of clarity...:)

In my opinion, this is all down to the young, inexperienced and quite frankly incompetent ski instructors that are prevalent in the Alps. This is clearly the result when instructor wages haven't changed in real terms in the last 10 years.

That said, I have known a number of military ski instructors, who through thorough briefing practices, ensure that all students are conversant with geography, topography and semantics with respect to all things alpine.

[[email protected]]

Hohoho - everyone's a comedian....;):ok:

[HeliComparator]

In my opinion, this is all down to the young, inexperienced and quite frankly incompetent ski instructors that are prevalent in the Alps. This is clearly the result when instructor wages haven't changed in real terms in the last 10 years.

That said, I have known a number of military ski instructors, who through thorough briefing practices, ensure that all students are conversant with geography, topography and semantics with respect to all things alpine.
Is there a "like" button on here?

[[email protected]]

Of course the answer to the ski instructor analogy is that they don't have low time instructors who have only just learned to ski, they don't allow foreigners (in France) to instruct and they protect the wages of the ESF (Ecole Ski Francaise) so they can make a decent living out of their profession.

Perhaps a structure for the CAA to consider:E:ok:

That said, I have known a number of military ski instructors, who through thorough briefing practices, ensure that all students are conversant with geography, topography and semantics with respect to all things alpine. and I thought thoroughly briefing the students was supposed to be a good thing:)

And for 206 - it is connected - by road:ok:;)

[206 jock]

Of course the answer to the ski instructor analogy is that they don't have low time instructors who have only just learned to ski, they don't allow foreigners (in France) to instruct and they protect the wages of the ESF (Ecole Ski Francaise) so they can make a decent living out of their profession.

Perhaps a structure for the CAA to consider

I think you are 20 years out of date in your facts there Crab (some might say...again!)

Example: | British Alpine Ski and Snowboard School (http://www.britishskischool.com/BASS_Resorts/Morzine)

A case of EU laws working for the Brits! The ESF protectionism was broken many years ago...they still hate it but tough titty.

[[email protected]]

http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/story.aspx?storyID=9237#.WJSH9G-LS00 (http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/story.aspx?storyID=9237#.WJSH9G-LS00)
Piste wars: 'To call the French system anti-British is ludicrous' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ski/news/Piste-wars-To-call-the-French-system-anti-British-is-ludicrous/) 20 years is something of an exaggeration - (some might say,,,,, again) the articles are from 2013 and 2014, and the point is that low time and poorly qualified instructors are still not allowed.

A case of EU laws working for the Brits! perhaps post-Brexit things might change back again............

[pilotmike]

I thought this forum was meant to be about things that go round and round in circles, consuming oxygen and generating a lot of hot air and noise...???!!!;)

[Nescafe]

things that go round and round in circles,
Like many of the threads?

consuming oxygen and generating a lot of hot air and noise...
Like many of the contributors?

😘

[[email protected]]

Well to get back on topic, perhaps GA owners might like to detail what performance calculations they complete before getting airborne and then how much attention they pay to performance limits once in the air:ok:

[RINKER]

For me a mere Pplh I always worked out my performance and W&B on the days I flew. Followed by a powercheck at landing site before committing to land to see if the donkey was performing as expected. Also wind as expected etc. I am a mechanical type person so fully understood the reasons re carb heat etc etc.
I would say some of my fellow pplh didn't seem to grasp the mechanical limitations the way I did. Questions like " how do you know that kind of stuff"
My answer was it was in the syllabus and I'm into it and study it to death.

R

[[email protected]]

Sounds pretty spot on to me Rinker:ok: I suspect you are the sort of pilot who won't load it up to the gunwhales until it will only just hover OGE - I think you are more likely to leave a bit of spare performance 'for the wife and kids'.

Keep up the good work.

[sycamore]

Going back to WIWALOnSy/ww/wx/pu/sc/gaz,one would do a power-check at min.power speed/max climb power speed,in level flight near the area that you intended to land,hover,winch either offloading or picking-up,and check max power available(to first engine limit/tq,n1,tgt,m-p,and then decide what you could actually do.Admittedly,a lot were `rule of thumb` calculations,adjusted by `experience`,or lack of info. in the PNs/crew manual.So what do you chaps do now ,with all the FADEC systems ,etc.>???

[RINKER]

To talk about pplh instruction,I was taught to fly in the Uk in 1997 by a fairly large company in the midlands beginning with S.
As I said my background is mechanical and I fly rc helicopters extensively.
So I had some rotary understanding. I was mostly taught by a young instructor who was excellent and very knowledgeable. Only changing to MB who sent me solo. The best time of my life, but without question these guys made me Very aware of power limitations etc of a machine I was sitting in rather than controlling remotely and the consequences of screwing it up.
Thanks for your comment Crab, with careful planning and accurate W,& B I've done some epic camping trips in the Scottish hills and Islands in the R44 well loaded but within limits with family and friends. All planned and discussed with the CFI in Scotland where I sfh'd the aircraft. I will say only after a lot of extra flying and mentoring after I gained my Pplh, including mountain flying course.
I feel confident that my instructors kept me right, I have learnt a lot from various instructors old and young civil and mil ( when I did SA 341 rating)
So I think good instruction is there if you strive for the right answers.
Not currently flying for financial reasons, but still learning.

R

[aa777888]

Crab writes:

"perhaps GA owners might like to detail what performance calculations they complete before getting airborne and then how much attention they pay to performance limits once in the air"

Not an owner, but a low time renter/commercial student operating Robinson equipment exclusively. My pre-planning is primarily of the "scenario based" methodology. That is to say, I've got a number of pre-planned, pre-calculated scenarios that I go by. If I'm planning a flight that does not fit neatly within one of those scenarios, then it's time to spend a minute or two with the spreadsheet, which is not a big chore since it's literally that fast to do a W&B with the spreadsheet. In my neck of the woods density altitude is rarely a planning factor, with most operations below 1000 ft MSL, and it doesn't normally get terribly hot in New England. However if I thought I was going to be operating in, say, the Presidential Range of New Hampshire, particularly in the summer, I'd certainly by sharpening the old pencil!

As for performance limits in the air, certainly one does not exceed MP limits, allow rotor RPM to decay, allow carb temp. to be low, descend too quickly below 30KN, or exceed maximum speeds, to hit the high points. Also scrupulously avoided are downwind approaches and high speeds in turbulence.

However, with a vast amount of highly forested and/or crowded urban terrain, operation in the avoid--er--"money" ;) part of the HV chart is not unusual with respect to certain steep approaches or max. performance take-offs to/from confined areas, with all due regard to minimizing time in those parts of the chart, of course. Some of those operations have required quite scrupulous pre-planning on my part. So far I've only been surprised once by a low-RPM warning on a max. performance take-off, but that was more of an issue of technique (still learning, I am) than poor planning, and was easily solved by moderating the climb rate a bit.

Power checks are also in the repertoire, but most of the time I am operating fairly light, so it always gets my attention when that first hover power check says I'm not light!

Anyhow, I suspect your demographic is a bit skewed here, Crab. Anyone that reads pprune for fun and profit is probably paying a bit more attention to their flying than the average Joe.

[[email protected]]

Anyhow, I suspect your demographic is a bit skewed here, Crab. Anyone that reads PPRuNe for fun and profit is probably paying a bit more attention to their flying than the average Joe.
I expect you are correct but there are probably a few who wring the last bit of performance (perhaps because they have to) out of their aircraft.

it is too easy to get a light helo to the point where it will just about hover OGE but that gives you absolutely no margin for error to deal with turbulence, wind shear, less than perfect flying or dirty blades/sluggish engine.

One option is to give yourself a thrust margin (we tend to use 5%) such that you calculate your max AUM for the conditions to hover OGE and then take 5% of that mass off and use that as your new 'don't go above' AUM. In that way you have some spare performance for 'the wife and kids' and should avoid embarrassing settling with power when making steep approaches.