Originally Posted by
FLY 7
I was never sure about that article. It attributes some justified blame, but is quite protective of the helicopter's design issues.
True. But that aside, with the greatest respect for Richard based on his other work that I am aware of, and with due respect for Martin who if nothing else was a highly qualified, experienced and accomplished competition pilot, I don't know quite what to do with Richard's advice.
Many of the things that Richard identifies (like peer pressure, get-there-ites, scud running, mental expectancy, suckers gap) helicopter pilots around the world experience or do frequently. This is the nature of the game. Else we would be like microlight pilots who only ever venture to the sky in the early hours of the morning, or just before sunset on a picture perfect day. The client wants to leave as late as possible (to get home before dark), and then still eats by 30 min into our buffer time; the clouds are low but we get through; the pax are definitely heavier than declared; the 'hand-luggage' of the paramedic is a 50 lbs heavy equipment bag; ... the list goes on.
The question is not where it starts (as we cannot avoid it in real life) but where to draw the line.
The Robbie flies perfectly well in 40 kts winds. It deals well with mild to moderate turbulence (giving time and opportunity if encountering the latter to fly out of it). +15 kts gusts are seemingly a non event. With very good tail rotor authority you can handle strong crosswinds in the hover. It is highly responsive allowing the pilot to handle any rotors or turbulences that I have ever seen, created by buildings or other structures along the approach path.
So where to draw the line? As Richard points out, none of the pilots who experienced inflight break-up of their helicopter, took off with the intention to die today. How do I know that turbulence is "light to moderate" (and not "moderate to severe", which Robinson disallows)? And are we saying that all those who crashed after encountering turbulence, have done so because they pushed on in conditions of
severe turbulence, failed to reduce airspeed, and/or gave incorrect, hamfisted cyclic inputs?
Somebody please tell me. Richard's article is silent about this.