Originally Posted by
SASless
212man......the counter argument which is quite valid is in those other (beginning with the one you grew up within) those authorities might have gone far too far in making their system too burdensome).
I have flown a lot of differrent helicopters (purposely did not use the words "type", "Model", "Mark" or other adjective or descriptive word)....and I have found them all to pretty much fly the same to the extent when you are
leanring Monkey Memory skills it does not take that long as when you move the flight controls the aircraft all respond with the same results.
The real difference in them all (generally) is their systems and how they are constructed and monitored and controlled and the operating limitations.
We. have had that discussion before and each time we in the FAA La La Land point out our industry is thriving and has an accident rate comparable to the other more restrictive and burdensome systems of certifications.
My introduction to the S-76 was a Two Week Flight Safety course that included the full Simulator course and then actual flight in the aircraft.
Can you say that about your conversion course for the Bell 212 done by the outfit that turned you into a 212 Pilot?
Did that same company require all EC-155 Pilots to attend similar two week Initial Training courses as part of their "Conversion Training"?
Mine was under the FAA system and yours was done in a non-FAA system.
It would seem there is a difference in management policies that was the main difference between the two systems....would you not agree?
Gulli,
The FAA is ruled by the Airplane Mafia and the Helicopter side is like a red headed bastard cousin at a family reunion at times.
The Federal Air Regulations (FAR's) have always been tailored towards Airplanes and until recent times were applied equally to Rotorcraft despite the unique differences Rotorcraft possess comopared to Airplanes.
We saw one example of that in the PBA system on the S-76 and the Chinook....and we see it in the "Type Rating" concept.
The FAA reasonably enough saw Cessna, Piper, and other Light Airplanes as being very similar and not very complex thus it settled upon the Weight Limit as being the determinant for requiring a "Type Rating".
The odd way the FAR's are written....when I did my Helicopter ATPL (in those days there was a VFR ONLY version) I wound up with a Bell 47 Type Rating as ATP rides were construed to be "Type Rides".
When I did the ATPL (note there is no VFR or IFR added to that) it was in a Bell 412 and I obtained both the ATPL and 412 Type Rating with one check ride....one being a VFR portion followed by an IFR portion.
There is a group of folks that do not understand our system....that seem to think one must have a "Type Rating" on each aircraft you fly....and that is an insistence that is not based upon anything but thinking there is but one true way to salvation.
We get around the "Type Rating" business by the FAR's requiring minimum time in "Type" and a Checkride in that particular "Type" of helicopter....even for those that do not require a "Type" rating.
We get to the same destination but by a different route.....and for those who criticize our system prove they do not fully understand the difference between the two methods.
Over the years I have formed an impression that down in Oz your system of licensing is very complex with official requirements that present a burden rather than a blessing....am I right in thinking that?
SASless I always wondered why such emphasis was made in the USA over factory ratings/endorsements. Personally the in house training I have had has been to a very high standard and much of the study material has been plagiarised from said factory courses. Talking to people that have done the factory courses they state they are very good yet they have not appeared more knowledgeable or proficient.
I suspect as you have eluded to it is another way of achieving the same ends and standards. Insurers as I understand give better rates or require said courses. The end result is the same though where a thorough understanding is required of all the aircraft systems.
I would rather enjoy the opportunity to do a factory course to see if there is much difference from the training I have been given.
I have flown with Pilots especially new to IFR that really do not like using the controls in attitude mode or with force trim when VFR/VMC. A reason often given is it’s not real flying or I suspect some pilots like having something to do all the time. The force trim release in the 76 can really be uncomfortable on your thumb if holding for long periods of time. It is easy to surmise that a pilot that doesn’t use the upper modes would rather fly with the force trim off. Now fly into IMC and to re-engage this system you have to look down and find a button that might not be used often... then press two more to couple.
When boat winching in the 76 often guys used to go to SAS mode which was much nicer on your thumb. However after departure they would forget to go back into attitude mode, engage the flight director and let go of the controls to watch the aircraft diverge before realising their mistake, no problem if not a bit messy VMC but big potential for serious problems IMC.
I did not trust myself to remember so just put up with the sore thumb.
It is entirely speculative but I have wondered if any of this was a factor on this flight.