Originally Posted by
chopjock
It makes me wonder why backing up downwind to keep the LZ in sight and so enable a forward descent / run on in event of an engine failure has any real advantage when in so doing puts more stress on everything and thus more likely to have an engine / tail rotor failure in the first place!
What 'stress', chopjock? And how does it create a greater likelihood of engine/tail rotor failure?
Originally Posted by
chopjock
I cringe when ever I see this, using all that power whilst backing up, when you could be doing a towering take off into wind and on your way in much less time.
Using 'all that power'? SND and crab@ have both explained that it is a
maximum of hover Tq plus10/15%. It is actually a relatively gentle application and very controlled, with little stress compared to many SE departures of 'pull max take off torque, nose forward and rotate'.
I've done a reasonable amount of both. I'm the guy that crab@ refers to as an ex-mil driver who would reef in power to get up quickly, and had to re-learn to be a bit more considerate to follow the correct profile.