Anyone flown (or fly) the Huey?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
PF#1,
GOTCHA!
P.S. I always "chicken out" and use the other runway....
GOTCHA!
P.S. I always "chicken out" and use the other runway....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell us one thing you always do, and from which others might learn
A nearby thread speaks of an accident probably caused by a loose harness buckle snagging the cyclic. Where I was taught to fly it was a SOP that all belts should be buckled, whether or not someone was in the seat, and that all headsets not in use should be stowed. The reason, I was told, was the risk of loose objects snagging pedals, collective or, err...the cyclic. The chief pilot was ex-mil, and may well have had Gazelle experience for all I know.
The point is, I've always followed that piece of advice, believing it to be obviously worthwhile.
So, what do you always do that others should always do?
The point is, I've always followed that piece of advice, believing it to be obviously worthwhile.
So, what do you always do that others should always do?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left Collective Huey
Hi all
This may seems a ridiculous question, but I have to ask...I met this so called Vietnam vet (NZ around 55y) and during a chat, he mentioned that check flights done by the Check Capt, were done left hand seat (I agreed so far) but wait for it: No collective for the check capt....he flew the cyclic left hand and used the collective right handed???? Is this true or this chap read too many war books
This may seems a ridiculous question, but I have to ask...I met this so called Vietnam vet (NZ around 55y) and during a chat, he mentioned that check flights done by the Check Capt, were done left hand seat (I agreed so far) but wait for it: No collective for the check capt....he flew the cyclic left hand and used the collective right handed???? Is this true or this chap read too many war books
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe/US
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as a young impressionable WO-G1 ( I reckon 21 years of age last year of 'Nam, I'd say his memory is cloudy and he was a
'REMF' with lots of mentors.......but then some of the hair-brained stories out of 'Nam are nearly as good as the other 'Nam....CheltenNam that is!!!!
'REMF' with lots of mentors.......but then some of the hair-brained stories out of 'Nam are nearly as good as the other 'Nam....CheltenNam that is!!!!
Have you ever tried to ride a bicycle with your arms crossed over? It doesn't work, as your learned responses are too ingrained.
I doubt that there would be too many people who could fly a cyclic with their left hand and work the collective with their right, especially in the rapid-response world of a check ride. I have tried to hover a Robbie from the left seat, using my cyclic and Bloggs' collective, but it was hopeless. Anybody else able to pull off an auto that way?
I doubt that there would be too many people who could fly a cyclic with their left hand and work the collective with their right, especially in the rapid-response world of a check ride. I have tried to hover a Robbie from the left seat, using my cyclic and Bloggs' collective, but it was hopeless. Anybody else able to pull off an auto that way?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hasn't happened to me, but a Malaysian friend of mine related a story where he was instructing in an Alouette (from the left seat naturally), and during the flare of an autorotation he was demonstrating, the collective disconnected. He switched hands to left hand on cyclic, right hand on student's collective and did a good landing.
So it can be done, but perhaps not as a matter of course.
So it can be done, but perhaps not as a matter of course.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being Gods Gift to Aviation but having flown with a couple, I can tell you its not easy but doable. I have flown with one IP who used to assist folks on the collective during autos and one can reach over in a UH-1 and do it.
One guy in particular (Steve Isle) in Sacramento is so comfortable in that machine, he can put it anywhere you want him too. Its going to ba a loss to the Instructor world when he retires.
One guy in particular (Steve Isle) in Sacramento is so comfortable in that machine, he can put it anywhere you want him too. Its going to ba a loss to the Instructor world when he retires.
"Just a pilot"
Can't answer for the Kiwis, but we Yanks had full duals in ALL or our Hueys. I've never seen a modern aircraft with partial duals, althouogh my understanding is that some very early helo had'em.
All my checkrides were flown right seat, but some ACs (aircraft commanders) prefered the left, better vis as there's less panel before you, and likely took their rides in that seat.
I have met "Viet Nam Vets" who'd tell you stories, sometimes actual lies. Not me, of course.
All my checkrides were flown right seat, but some ACs (aircraft commanders) prefered the left, better vis as there's less panel before you, and likely took their rides in that seat.
I have met "Viet Nam Vets" who'd tell you stories, sometimes actual lies. Not me, of course.
FWIW, early helicopters (Sikorsky R4 springs to mind) had only one collective, and the left seat pilot flew left handed, with his right hand on the common collective. This is often quoted as the "reason" that helicopters are (generally) flown command from the right seat, since this is the "natural" seat for a right handed person.
Since the R4 was so narrow that two people have trouble sitting side by side, the manipulation of the collective must have been a cosy arrangement.....
Since the R4 was so narrow that two people have trouble sitting side by side, the manipulation of the collective must have been a cosy arrangement.....
Gentleman Aviator
Even more fun in the Sycamore (I've been told - even Teehead not that old!) was the manual throttle from the LHS; not only used with right hand, but rotated forward - it was the cross-piece on a Tee-shaped collective located centrally.
Very disorientating flying "wrong-handed"; for many years CFS(H) [who train all UK mil helo instructors] include a "wrong-hands hover" demo for student instructors ... amongst other reasons, so they could remember how hard hovering is the first time you try!
Very disorientating flying "wrong-handed"; for many years CFS(H) [who train all UK mil helo instructors] include a "wrong-hands hover" demo for student instructors ... amongst other reasons, so they could remember how hard hovering is the first time you try!
A QHI at Shawbury once took control from his student in a Gazelle in a confined area to debrief him - for some reason he took the cyclic in his left hand and the RHS pilots collective in his right. They promptly speared in (survived with few injuries) not surprisingly. As a result of this crash we had to put student QHIs in the LHS of the Gazelle and let them try to hover it in this fashion - just to prove what a stupid idea it was. With practise it can be achieved but more often an brief period of relative stability is followed by a rapidly worsening situation as the pilot tries to use his left hand (now on the cyclic) to correct the height errors and his right hand to selct the hover attitude.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hovering would be a challenge, but switching hands during forward (stable) flight isn't so bad. Last time I was up with a CFI, I started practicing the switch. In the Robbie, it will be a convenient skill to have when instructing from the LHS and you need to reach over to switch freqs with your right hand. I wouldn't do it in a hover or emergency (hopefully).
Ahhh, the joys of flying the Sycamore.
The collective was actually "L" shaped, with the throttle on the end facing right. Early Syc. were flown from the left and had a conventional left collective, but I can`t recall that later models had one, only the one in the middle.The throttle/ collective cam arrangement/linkage was pretty variable , so on raising the lever, if the RRPM weren`t right you had to wind on/off throttle as the case may be. Taught you to have a well-tuned set of ears, so you could concentrate outside to see where your next problem was.
It also had: Wooden matched blades
Manual controls, and trimmers( big wheels like f/w!)
An electric pump for the Cof G compensating system( as pax were carried in the cabin, the c of g went fwd, so you pumped fluid from the front tank to the aft one in the tail boom-- and vice-versa as pax were deplaned) Victor Borge wrote about a similar system ! and it was easy to get it all wrong.
As the hover trim control positions and forces were different from fwd flight, you had to set the manual trimmers as you were doing the approach, and remembering to adjust the Cof G compensator as well, and of course vice-versa.!!!!
If you got the touchdown ok, as you lowered the lever, you had to trickle fwd, as the tyres would roll off the rims--- at this point, as there was a change in RRPM, YOU WOULD INVARIABLY BURST INTO GROUND RESONANCE, especially on concrete /tarmac !!
So, it was either, full power and get airborne, or if the RRPM were well down, then ride it out.
On the other hand, it was the only helo that I`ve done max- rate turns in-- full power and pull as hard as you dared....
Oh yes, nearly forgot; you could als do a "jump t/o", by overspeeding the RRPM, then pulling pitch and hoping you got to TL speed before the RRPM had decayed too much , or you touched down at high speed and then got ground resonance, and............%$&(*???
So, anyone think they`d like that as a basic trainer??
Great aircraft , sorted the boys from the men... on our basic course , it was the "old farts", ex -fighter pilots who had all the problems; us lads just didn`t know any better.......
The collective was actually "L" shaped, with the throttle on the end facing right. Early Syc. were flown from the left and had a conventional left collective, but I can`t recall that later models had one, only the one in the middle.The throttle/ collective cam arrangement/linkage was pretty variable , so on raising the lever, if the RRPM weren`t right you had to wind on/off throttle as the case may be. Taught you to have a well-tuned set of ears, so you could concentrate outside to see where your next problem was.
It also had: Wooden matched blades
Manual controls, and trimmers( big wheels like f/w!)
An electric pump for the Cof G compensating system( as pax were carried in the cabin, the c of g went fwd, so you pumped fluid from the front tank to the aft one in the tail boom-- and vice-versa as pax were deplaned) Victor Borge wrote about a similar system ! and it was easy to get it all wrong.
As the hover trim control positions and forces were different from fwd flight, you had to set the manual trimmers as you were doing the approach, and remembering to adjust the Cof G compensator as well, and of course vice-versa.!!!!
If you got the touchdown ok, as you lowered the lever, you had to trickle fwd, as the tyres would roll off the rims--- at this point, as there was a change in RRPM, YOU WOULD INVARIABLY BURST INTO GROUND RESONANCE, especially on concrete /tarmac !!
So, it was either, full power and get airborne, or if the RRPM were well down, then ride it out.
On the other hand, it was the only helo that I`ve done max- rate turns in-- full power and pull as hard as you dared....
Oh yes, nearly forgot; you could als do a "jump t/o", by overspeeding the RRPM, then pulling pitch and hoping you got to TL speed before the RRPM had decayed too much , or you touched down at high speed and then got ground resonance, and............%$&(*???
So, anyone think they`d like that as a basic trainer??
Great aircraft , sorted the boys from the men... on our basic course , it was the "old farts", ex -fighter pilots who had all the problems; us lads just didn`t know any better.......
Huey again
In an interesting parallel to the case in South Africa, a similar battle is brewing in the US with the FAA.
US operator details objections to FAA.
Waterfront helicopter takes flak in court
February 13 2004 at 10:19AM
By Karyn Maughan - Cape Argus
It survived the Vietnam war, but one V&A Waterfront-based Huey helicopter might find its rotors clipped following an urgent application in the Cape High Court on Thursday.
The Waterfront sought an order stopping Helicopter and Marine Services and the Huey Extreme Club from flying an allegedly "unairworthy" ex-military helicopter from its helipad, as "each time the Huey flies it's in contravention of the grounding order", the popular tourist destination was "at serious risk".
The helicopter was grounded by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on January 7, but continued to fly until January 17, when it made a forced landing in the Cape Town flying area and allegedly had to be towed to its hangar for repairs. It was used for flights again - in alleged contravention of the grounding order - on January 29.
It emerged in court on Thursday that the Huey, registered as ZU-CVC-B205, was constructed from four helicopters which had served in the United States, Israeli and Ethiopian air forces and which had been sold to a South African businessman.
It was used for flights again
"We hope that this helicopter does not suffer, like many other Vietnam vets, from post-traumatic stress syndrome or feel the effects of a few whiffs of Agent Orange," said Cedric Puckrin, advocate for the CAA.
Although cited as a respondent in the case, the CAA says it supports the Waterfront's efforts to enforce the grounding of the Huey.
The authority is also currently engaged in a safety audit of the helicopter and is sourcing information from Taiwan and Italy.
Puckrin - assisted by junior counsel Gordon Aber and Guy Elliott - pointed out that military aircraft were held to less rigid safety standards than their commercial counterparts.
Puckrin also referred to a letter written by Bell, in which the helicopter's manufacturer stated many changes had been made to its military-use helicopters without its knowledge or approval. Bell said it was therefore unable to take responsibility for their continuing airworthiness.
The CAA says it supports the Waterfront's efforts
In response to charges that it had failed to keep proper and appropriate records of its helicopter's parts, the Huey Extreme Club - represented by Peter Hodes - claims it is not a commercial venture and therefore has no obligation to comply with commercial flying regulations.
It described the helicopter's condition as "exemplary" and said it had "an impeccable safety record".
It also denied that it flew over the Waterfront.
In an affidavit before the court, the Club said its "sole source of income" came from its "membership fees" - adding that the grounding of its helicopter would remove the incentive for "day members" to join. Such "day members", it emerged, would pay a R750 "joining fee" and thereafter enjoy a "free" introductory flight.
"This is what one would describe as a 'foefie'," said Puckrin - describing the Club's self-proclaimed club status as a "stratagem" intended to prevent it from complying with commercial flight safety regulations.
The case before Mr Justice Jock Comrie continues.
US operator objections.
US operator details objections to FAA.
Waterfront helicopter takes flak in court
February 13 2004 at 10:19AM
By Karyn Maughan - Cape Argus
It survived the Vietnam war, but one V&A Waterfront-based Huey helicopter might find its rotors clipped following an urgent application in the Cape High Court on Thursday.
The Waterfront sought an order stopping Helicopter and Marine Services and the Huey Extreme Club from flying an allegedly "unairworthy" ex-military helicopter from its helipad, as "each time the Huey flies it's in contravention of the grounding order", the popular tourist destination was "at serious risk".
The helicopter was grounded by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on January 7, but continued to fly until January 17, when it made a forced landing in the Cape Town flying area and allegedly had to be towed to its hangar for repairs. It was used for flights again - in alleged contravention of the grounding order - on January 29.
It emerged in court on Thursday that the Huey, registered as ZU-CVC-B205, was constructed from four helicopters which had served in the United States, Israeli and Ethiopian air forces and which had been sold to a South African businessman.
It was used for flights again
"We hope that this helicopter does not suffer, like many other Vietnam vets, from post-traumatic stress syndrome or feel the effects of a few whiffs of Agent Orange," said Cedric Puckrin, advocate for the CAA.
Although cited as a respondent in the case, the CAA says it supports the Waterfront's efforts to enforce the grounding of the Huey.
The authority is also currently engaged in a safety audit of the helicopter and is sourcing information from Taiwan and Italy.
Puckrin - assisted by junior counsel Gordon Aber and Guy Elliott - pointed out that military aircraft were held to less rigid safety standards than their commercial counterparts.
Puckrin also referred to a letter written by Bell, in which the helicopter's manufacturer stated many changes had been made to its military-use helicopters without its knowledge or approval. Bell said it was therefore unable to take responsibility for their continuing airworthiness.
The CAA says it supports the Waterfront's efforts
In response to charges that it had failed to keep proper and appropriate records of its helicopter's parts, the Huey Extreme Club - represented by Peter Hodes - claims it is not a commercial venture and therefore has no obligation to comply with commercial flying regulations.
It described the helicopter's condition as "exemplary" and said it had "an impeccable safety record".
It also denied that it flew over the Waterfront.
In an affidavit before the court, the Club said its "sole source of income" came from its "membership fees" - adding that the grounding of its helicopter would remove the incentive for "day members" to join. Such "day members", it emerged, would pay a R750 "joining fee" and thereafter enjoy a "free" introductory flight.
"This is what one would describe as a 'foefie'," said Puckrin - describing the Club's self-proclaimed club status as a "stratagem" intended to prevent it from complying with commercial flight safety regulations.
The case before Mr Justice Jock Comrie continues.
US operator objections.
I am so glad the CAA worries about a veteran that served in combat and in all liklihood sniffed Agent Orange and suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). That certainly is heart warming of the CAA...shame the very veteran's that flew Huey's into the same combat did not get the same concern from the American Veteran's Administration. Just like the Gulf War veteran's did not get any concern when the Gulf War Syndrome struck down so many and that problem also got ignored.
The truth of the matter is simple. Even this old Huey, just as human veterans, with tender loving care, even the Veteran with PTSD, can live out a normal productive life and those that have Agent Orange complications all have diseases that are slow acting and easily diagnosed. The one exception being birth defects.
We do not see any Baby Huey's out there....except in positions of officaldom that make statements such as the CAA gentleman being quoted. Of course, this issue requires one to be a Veteran and probably an American to understand what a Baby Huey is?
But really...why was it perfectly legal ...then and still is...for me to fly my UH-1H day and night...fair weather and foul...with a full load of soldiers....into and out of LZ's under hostile fire...but now the very same aircraft design is unsafe for carrying passengers for a Jolly around an airport or fairgrounds?
There is a much bigger issue here....are our soldiers getting the short end of the stick or is the regulatory system out of whack? Just why is Bell Helicopters so worried about the "Liability" issue?
The truth of the matter is simple. Even this old Huey, just as human veterans, with tender loving care, even the Veteran with PTSD, can live out a normal productive life and those that have Agent Orange complications all have diseases that are slow acting and easily diagnosed. The one exception being birth defects.
We do not see any Baby Huey's out there....except in positions of officaldom that make statements such as the CAA gentleman being quoted. Of course, this issue requires one to be a Veteran and probably an American to understand what a Baby Huey is?
But really...why was it perfectly legal ...then and still is...for me to fly my UH-1H day and night...fair weather and foul...with a full load of soldiers....into and out of LZ's under hostile fire...but now the very same aircraft design is unsafe for carrying passengers for a Jolly around an airport or fairgrounds?
There is a much bigger issue here....are our soldiers getting the short end of the stick or is the regulatory system out of whack? Just why is Bell Helicopters so worried about the "Liability" issue?
I thought that the objection by Bell was due to the damage to it's civillian sales figures that the military surplus machines pose.........And while we've got 'em in the spotlight, how about some of that legendary Bell product support for the Bell 47 operators of the world, instead of trying to price them into 206s