Originally Posted by
HeliComparator
Anyway "it" wasn't caused by any of the above, "it" was caused by prolonged inattention to the airspeed having previously intentionally destabilised the approach by substantially reducing power to slow down.
Sounds eerily similar to a 777 at SFO. In this case, there is no training captain to blame.
HC, the term "overreliance on automation" is not to be countered with "you are a cavemen for so asserting" if one wishes to prevent accidents in the future.
For GypsieMagpie:
It's dangerous when you are swapping axes (collective = speed) and an engaged mode will fly you into danger.
It was noted some pages back that collective controlling airspeed is counterintuitive to the basics of helicopter flying. So in part you raise a salient point.
What is also true is that when one knows one's aircraft and one's systems, what may have been counterintuitive can become understood and applied to a given mission. People who have flown multiple models of aircraft have to do that all the time, as do people who fly more than one type for a fleet that has multiple types. If you are used to flying a given machine, you may find the next machine "counterintuitive" until one is used to it ... or trained to it. A test pilot friend of mine experienced that when flying a few Aerospatiale (and Mi) helicopters after some years as a U.S. Helicopter pilot.
(See the old vertigo demonstrations under the bag, for one).