Originally Posted by Mr Selfish
...
In my mind calling the two techniques the same thing is like saying “we did an hour of approaches – some with the engine at idle”
MS
I'm not claiming they shouldn't have different names, nor that the names you already have for them in your lexicon are inappropriate, I was just giving you a glimpse into the lexicon and training environment that I'm familiar with (in order to clear up / add to the confusion).
Were I still teaching I might adopt the "power terminated" term, but unfortunately, my company prefers if I avoid autos all together (I guess they might scare the tourists.)
.
Originally Posted by Flingwing207
SFAR 73 isn't about fulldowns, it's about managing RRPM from top to bottom. Robinson's own training syllabus has very little to say about what happens after levelling the flare.
Ah, but my point is that managing RRPM from top to bottom, while doing non-standard manuevers to reach a specific spot, such as max glide configuration, zero airspeed or backwards autorotational descents, turns, etc. (which are the types of maneuvers that the Sacramento FSDO attaches to the term "enhanced") is all much more difficult, IMHO, than simply flying a fulldown auto, which means that cfi who can teach sfar maneuvers (and/or recieve an SFAR endorsement in the SAC FSDO) should find demonstrating a fulldown to be cake.
Basically I'm saying that teaching real autos to real students (in fake helicopter?
) takes a lot of skill / training, and since that is one of the primary things a cfi will find him(or her)self doing, they should be pretty proficient at it by the time they become certified to teach it, which should make the completion of the fulldown TASK pretty easy.
I can agree with some that the final five feet aren't that difficult, and that if you can fly the auto to a powered hover in a good safe spot, you'll probably walk away from the real thing, but I see any lowering of the standards to be a step in the wrong direction.