Good thread.
I believe there are some good words of wisdom in the article, and I can agree with the sentiment, but I cannot agree with the solution. As RD says above a "one size fits all" is not the best option. We have enough syllabus hours to teach the student what auto entry technique to use, when, and why.
There are some other points that I wish to raise with the article:
It seems to emphasise aft cyclic in preference to lowering the collective. This I cannot agree to except in TWO instances: the low level "pop up" where you trade altitude for airspeed/RRPM in an effort to avoid overshooting a good landing spot, OR to sacrifice airspeed in an attempt to regain badly lost RRPM. The article covers the second instance, and I fully agree here, aft cyclic MUST be applied when RRPM is not recovering, or is recovering too slowly. The simple priority I have found useful in teaching emergencies like this is:
RRPM is life fix it first - ie Maintain RRPM first,
Then maintain airspeed if possible,
only then maintain altitude if you have to.
Sacrifice altitude and airspeed in order to obey "RRPM is life"! Twins or singles.
What this translates into when relating to the article, correct take off technique is paramount. Use a gate at an appropriate height (we use 100 ft in UH-1H) to hit climb speed. Climb at best auto speed plus about 10 - 15kts, again 70 - 75 kts in the UH-1H which autos at about 60 - 65 for min RoD. Then if you suffer an engine failure you achieve several things:
1. Lower collective as per any other auto entry technique.
2. Maintain nose attitude (resist forward, apply aft ONLY if RRPM continues to degrade) with cyclic as you lower RRPM.
3. Enter normal flare auto flare and landing/cushion.
4. Change shorts.
In other words, during engine failure after take off (EFATO) in the UH-1H, you are entering the normal flare for an autorotative landing with about the right airspeed and some up the sleeve for RRPM recovery if required. Works in all types I have flown so far, but its the UH-1 where I can best remember the numbers.
What worries me about the article is that it is emphasising an aft cyclic solution to a problem that has it's root cause in take off technique (See RD's "reinforced" belief that aft cyclic is required). My opinion is that if you applied aft cyclic following an EFATO at 200 ft and 50 kts, then you will end up with the same results as the article is attempting to avoid. Thus I stress that the one solution is dangerous to pursue and therefore I do not believe that the authour is "on to anything". What about an auto at an OGE hover at 1000ft AGL?
The testing for certification is not quite explained by the article. It allows for a "reasonable" pilot reaction - not a perfect pilot, nor a terrible pilot - and it assumes that you are following published profiles such as take off techniques. thus if you are changing the radio, scratching your ar5e, a slower than normal pilot, and are a couple of knots slow for your hieght on take off, you are NOT covered by the certification!
Lastly, I take issue with the statements about the blades slowing down faster on non turbine aircraft. With all due respect Sir: bolloxs! Blades slow faster dependant upon inertia at time of failure, and drag applied (ie pitch). That is why a BK 117 blades slow down a whole lot faster that a B47 regardless of engine type!
Any discussion about this topic is good, and the article certainly stimulates that. Well done.
