EC120 Rolls in Durban
Guest
Posts: n/a
IMHO, B Sousa has got it right. The only way forward is to stop complaining about CAA, which is on an inevitable downward spiral and take control.
We need a (South) African Helicopter Pilot's Association, like, or perhaps in association with ALPA, which will act like SAA does and advises CAA how operations are going to be done and politely asks CAA to rubber stamp them or perhaps make a constructive criticism or two. If you ain't in the Association you are on your own but if you're in, the AHPA handles everything with CAA for you.
Anyone willing to do it ? Maybe one of the retiring CAA persons who does know what they're talking about ?
(Could also be a possible way to sort out the game and illegal charter industries and stop PPLs writing off helis and killing passengers ?)
We need a (South) African Helicopter Pilot's Association, like, or perhaps in association with ALPA, which will act like SAA does and advises CAA how operations are going to be done and politely asks CAA to rubber stamp them or perhaps make a constructive criticism or two. If you ain't in the Association you are on your own but if you're in, the AHPA handles everything with CAA for you.
Anyone willing to do it ? Maybe one of the retiring CAA persons who does know what they're talking about ?
(Could also be a possible way to sort out the game and illegal charter industries and stop PPLs writing off helis and killing passengers ?)
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"or perhaps in association with ALPA"
I think you will find that your ALPA is much like that in the states. The criteria for membership excludes Lowly Helicopter drivers. Further that in the states you cannot get two Helicopter Pilots to agree on the time of day let alone something important. Organization has never been possible here and if you watch the forum on www.justhelicopters.com you will see they are continually fighting as to Unionization, Associations etc. We have some major operators here in the states that have a few hundred Helicopter Pilots each in their employ. Associations are not really working for them and the rest of the pilots working for small companies dont stand a chance. Start something like that and they would replace the whole lot as there are many others waiting in the wings who would love to shed their Robbie skins for something that burns Jet-A
Good Idea if you can make it work...............
I think you will find that your ALPA is much like that in the states. The criteria for membership excludes Lowly Helicopter drivers. Further that in the states you cannot get two Helicopter Pilots to agree on the time of day let alone something important. Organization has never been possible here and if you watch the forum on www.justhelicopters.com you will see they are continually fighting as to Unionization, Associations etc. We have some major operators here in the states that have a few hundred Helicopter Pilots each in their employ. Associations are not really working for them and the rest of the pilots working for small companies dont stand a chance. Start something like that and they would replace the whole lot as there are many others waiting in the wings who would love to shed their Robbie skins for something that burns Jet-A
Good Idea if you can make it work...............
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autorotate, he is not the same guy.
Been away last week to AAD04, very interesting so have a bit of catch up to do. I understand that the CAA has not sent the letter to the pilot involved in the accident yet, only the 'verbal intention'. The other two who were not involved have received their letters.
Whilst in Pretoria, I had an opportunity to speak to someone who has completed the Eurocopter course in France. When they got to this exercise the Eurocopter instructor snapped the throttle closed (as opposed to controlling the yaw with throttle) as the aircraft came into the hover, to the extent that the machine yawed in the opposite direction on its way to the ground. The student enquired as to why this was done and was told that "you do not want it to go that way!"
I have to admit that I have asked a lot of people about fenestrons and nobody seems aware of any particular vice as was encountered in this case.
Been away last week to AAD04, very interesting so have a bit of catch up to do. I understand that the CAA has not sent the letter to the pilot involved in the accident yet, only the 'verbal intention'. The other two who were not involved have received their letters.
Whilst in Pretoria, I had an opportunity to speak to someone who has completed the Eurocopter course in France. When they got to this exercise the Eurocopter instructor snapped the throttle closed (as opposed to controlling the yaw with throttle) as the aircraft came into the hover, to the extent that the machine yawed in the opposite direction on its way to the ground. The student enquired as to why this was done and was told that "you do not want it to go that way!"
I have to admit that I have asked a lot of people about fenestrons and nobody seems aware of any particular vice as was encountered in this case.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a FOX!
This man ran a flight school at Grand Central (Drome Z) as well as a maintenance organisation during the mid to late nineties.
His favourite in the Maintenance Shop was to steal servicable components from clients helicopters, and replace them with timex parts. Our Jetrangers suffered badly under his hands those days.
Other means of making money was to take huge advances from students, let them fly for a couple of hours, then stop them, and take their money.
His favourite was to take your helicopter, put it on a contract (soil sampling for example) fly the **** out of it, pocket the money and not pay you.
This man not only ruined his own father financially, but also a lot of other people, including my partner.
This man has no scruples or morals, and is the biggest bull
r on two legs.
People in the aviation industry should stand together to remove this man from having anything to do with aviation.
I hope you rot in hell one day Mr. Gary Fox!
This man ran a flight school at Grand Central (Drome Z) as well as a maintenance organisation during the mid to late nineties.
His favourite in the Maintenance Shop was to steal servicable components from clients helicopters, and replace them with timex parts. Our Jetrangers suffered badly under his hands those days.
Other means of making money was to take huge advances from students, let them fly for a couple of hours, then stop them, and take their money.
His favourite was to take your helicopter, put it on a contract (soil sampling for example) fly the **** out of it, pocket the money and not pay you.
This man not only ruined his own father financially, but also a lot of other people, including my partner.
This man has no scruples or morals, and is the biggest bull
r on two legs.People in the aviation industry should stand together to remove this man from having anything to do with aviation.
I hope you rot in hell one day Mr. Gary Fox!
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I wrong or did a couple pages of this thread just disappear...............
I am not wrong and it looks like I have been considered the author...........Not true, but see ya all on the other thread........
I am not wrong and it looks like I have been considered the author...........Not true, but see ya all on the other thread........
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "Fox Factor" would'nt we all just love to add a few names to that list ...............
Back to the topic. Has Eurcopter or CAA taken the time yet to respond, I guess not!
Back to the topic. Has Eurcopter or CAA taken the time yet to respond, I guess not!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its doubtfull if you if you'll get a response from Eurocopter.
The CAA man, Mr GB, is currently abroad, and will only return to office in approximately 3 weeks.
I chatted to a few people at the CAA this week, and they are adament that the right thing was done. After listening to their side of the story in more detail, I can post the following:
Apparently, and the 3 involved will know, one instructor converted the other, and the other converted the "incident victim". The CAA's thought on the issue is that the "incident victim", although a senior pilot, had less than 10 hours on the EC 120 when the "advanced manouvers" were conducted, which lead to the "incident".
The CAA man, Mr. GB, who the CAA regard as a highly competent EC 120 pilot/instructor, and who has done several factory courses, was in Durban at the time, and upon investigation, he established that "certain competency" with regards to the executing of advanced manouvers such as was practised, was not sufficient, and it appeared that the instructors involved did not really know how to deal with the "fenestron failures" as prescribed by the factory.
Based on this, the 3 had their instructor ratings pulled, and needs to satisfy the CAA of their competence in this regard, prior to getting it back again.
In spite of all of the above, it is all rather strange that the CAA took such firm action, and one can only but wonder if this action was taken in the interest of "aviation safety", or if their are other hidden issues involved that we don't know about????
A couple of Durban Helo pilots that I spoke to, are of the opinion that Mr. GB and the CAA acted correctly! Maybe they know more than I do.
Safe flying!
The CAA man, Mr GB, is currently abroad, and will only return to office in approximately 3 weeks.
I chatted to a few people at the CAA this week, and they are adament that the right thing was done. After listening to their side of the story in more detail, I can post the following:
Apparently, and the 3 involved will know, one instructor converted the other, and the other converted the "incident victim". The CAA's thought on the issue is that the "incident victim", although a senior pilot, had less than 10 hours on the EC 120 when the "advanced manouvers" were conducted, which lead to the "incident".
The CAA man, Mr. GB, who the CAA regard as a highly competent EC 120 pilot/instructor, and who has done several factory courses, was in Durban at the time, and upon investigation, he established that "certain competency" with regards to the executing of advanced manouvers such as was practised, was not sufficient, and it appeared that the instructors involved did not really know how to deal with the "fenestron failures" as prescribed by the factory.
Based on this, the 3 had their instructor ratings pulled, and needs to satisfy the CAA of their competence in this regard, prior to getting it back again.
In spite of all of the above, it is all rather strange that the CAA took such firm action, and one can only but wonder if this action was taken in the interest of "aviation safety", or if their are other hidden issues involved that we don't know about????
A couple of Durban Helo pilots that I spoke to, are of the opinion that Mr. GB and the CAA acted correctly! Maybe they know more than I do.
Safe flying!
Guest
Posts: n/a
"to deal with the "fenestron failures" as prescribed by the factory"
Does this refer to the manual's instructions that if you aren't in the hover and it happens, then you must autorotate , not try to fly in with power and close throttle ?
Sir Cumference reports the student in France was told
'When they got to this exercise the Eurocopter instructor snapped the throttle closed (as opposed to controlling the yaw with throttle) as the aircraft came into the hover', the key here being 'as the aircraft came into the hover'. If it was flying already, ie in translational flight before it came into the hover, how did it get there ? Doesn't this imply that they flew it down to the hover and then closed throttle ? Therefore no autorotation ?
I am now confused and even more uncomfortable with the 120. Will talk to Mr GB when he comes back but the scary element is not knowing what is the correct procedure and critically, what does the insurance company want you to do ?
Why doesn't Eurocopter say something, if not here, then somewhere eg. safety bulletin ?
Does this refer to the manual's instructions that if you aren't in the hover and it happens, then you must autorotate , not try to fly in with power and close throttle ?
Sir Cumference reports the student in France was told
'When they got to this exercise the Eurocopter instructor snapped the throttle closed (as opposed to controlling the yaw with throttle) as the aircraft came into the hover', the key here being 'as the aircraft came into the hover'. If it was flying already, ie in translational flight before it came into the hover, how did it get there ? Doesn't this imply that they flew it down to the hover and then closed throttle ? Therefore no autorotation ?
I am now confused and even more uncomfortable with the 120. Will talk to Mr GB when he comes back but the scary element is not knowing what is the correct procedure and critically, what does the insurance company want you to do ?
Why doesn't Eurocopter say something, if not here, then somewhere eg. safety bulletin ?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOAROUND7..... You're right! Eurocopter should at least say something, but I can guarantee you they won't. As far as they're concerned, their helicopter is the best thing since sliced bread, and that you as the pilot, should KNOW how to pole it. If you don't, its none of their business.
I personally spoke to a person at Eurocopter SA, and the answer was clear: "Fly the helicopter according to the Manual. I mean what more can we say? Do we now have to tell the pilots how to read the manuals"?
You can just guess who that was!
I personally spoke to a person at Eurocopter SA, and the answer was clear: "Fly the helicopter according to the Manual. I mean what more can we say? Do we now have to tell the pilots how to read the manuals"?
You can just guess who that was!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time on type
Seems like the CAA (present in Durban when the accident happened) must need glasses or the indicent victim lied in his report. Had a chat to him and he says his logbook count shows just over 100 on type.
The flight manual is quite clear - read 3.6 - in the hover close the throttle and cushion the landing with collective. So what are the other things the guys should have known about.
By the way where is the CAA man - abroad on holiday or work or a PJ (private job).
Maybe the CAA action was correct - well in their minds - but why then has the issue suddenly brought information to light in the form of a booklet and an intended roadshow - tells me there is more.
The flight manual is quite clear - read 3.6 - in the hover close the throttle and cushion the landing with collective. So what are the other things the guys should have known about.
By the way where is the CAA man - abroad on holiday or work or a PJ (private job).
Maybe the CAA action was correct - well in their minds - but why then has the issue suddenly brought information to light in the form of a booklet and an intended roadshow - tells me there is more.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The irony of instruction
Clipboard - you say the guys obviously did not do an auto - as it appears they should have instead of bringing it to the hover.
Any instruction will always place an instructor at the bounds - it is inherently risky work and it is up to the instrucotr to judge the progression of the exercise.
A simple chat with the "incident victim" indicates that all things appeared normal - as per a standard Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise - i.e. directional control in forward flight. So he (they) brought it to teh hover - only after starting to close the throttle did thingsd start to go pear shaped - and as he says "very quickly". In fact he said things went bad so fast it felt like "someone had cut the tail boom off".
So did he just have a bash or was he doing what is expected of an instructor - i.e. the irony of instruction is you train to avoid accidents as they sure were doing and ironically had one. Now of course all the focus is on the fact that as the CAA purportedly show, he was not sufficiently experienced in the fenstron etc.
Well my guess is experience showed itself in the fact that as he said "we estimated the rotation speed to be around 120 to 180 degrees per second" and he chose to keep it in the air to the effect that he said he estimated six or so revolutions. Thats good going don't you think. Further, at that rate of rotation dumping a machine is a big decision, because you know it is going to end up on the ESA repair floor and insurers are going to ask questions.
Now if you are in a situation like this, where do you decide to call things quits. I guess this guy wnet the whole hog in trying to get out of the situation and he says the booklet reveals a recovery period that takes quite a while - so me thinks Uncle Gerr could rethink the whole issue and maybe let the guy give some feedback to all operators in helping all learn from the situation.
Get the guy back in the saddle!!
Any instruction will always place an instructor at the bounds - it is inherently risky work and it is up to the instrucotr to judge the progression of the exercise.
A simple chat with the "incident victim" indicates that all things appeared normal - as per a standard Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise - i.e. directional control in forward flight. So he (they) brought it to teh hover - only after starting to close the throttle did thingsd start to go pear shaped - and as he says "very quickly". In fact he said things went bad so fast it felt like "someone had cut the tail boom off".
So did he just have a bash or was he doing what is expected of an instructor - i.e. the irony of instruction is you train to avoid accidents as they sure were doing and ironically had one. Now of course all the focus is on the fact that as the CAA purportedly show, he was not sufficiently experienced in the fenstron etc.
Well my guess is experience showed itself in the fact that as he said "we estimated the rotation speed to be around 120 to 180 degrees per second" and he chose to keep it in the air to the effect that he said he estimated six or so revolutions. Thats good going don't you think. Further, at that rate of rotation dumping a machine is a big decision, because you know it is going to end up on the ESA repair floor and insurers are going to ask questions.
Now if you are in a situation like this, where do you decide to call things quits. I guess this guy wnet the whole hog in trying to get out of the situation and he says the booklet reveals a recovery period that takes quite a while - so me thinks Uncle Gerr could rethink the whole issue and maybe let the guy give some feedback to all operators in helping all learn from the situation.
Get the guy back in the saddle!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
So that hopefully I understand now:
Clipboard reported:
'A simple chat with the "incident victim" indicates that all things appeared normal - as per a standard Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise - i.e. directional control in forward flight. '
Then they went into the hover ? So, in summary:
1) Manual says ' do an auto'
2) They flew it down, intending to use throttle control as we all know can be done - usually, but...
3) It all went horribly wrong
4) CAA points out the error and associates it with fenestrom
5) Eurocopter unofficially says ' rtf manual'
So, instructor did not follow manual and cocked it up.
You've got says:
'Any instruction will always place an instructor at the bounds - it is inherently risky work and it is up to the instrucotr to judge the progression of the exercise.'
Too true and if s/he had a real fenstrom failure and brought in safely to the ground using throttle control, that would make the instructor a hero. Bummer! Can't win either way but auto will see you receiving sympathy rather than blame.
Last question: what does insurance company say ?
Clipboard reported:
'A simple chat with the "incident victim" indicates that all things appeared normal - as per a standard Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise - i.e. directional control in forward flight. '
Then they went into the hover ? So, in summary:
1) Manual says ' do an auto'
2) They flew it down, intending to use throttle control as we all know can be done - usually, but...
3) It all went horribly wrong
4) CAA points out the error and associates it with fenestrom
5) Eurocopter unofficially says ' rtf manual'
So, instructor did not follow manual and cocked it up.
You've got says:
'Any instruction will always place an instructor at the bounds - it is inherently risky work and it is up to the instrucotr to judge the progression of the exercise.'
Too true and if s/he had a real fenstrom failure and brought in safely to the ground using throttle control, that would make the instructor a hero. Bummer! Can't win either way but auto will see you receiving sympathy rather than blame.
Last question: what does insurance company say ?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
goaround7 - reread the above posts.
If you have ever done instruction - a TR Control failure can be flown all the way to the hover - well at least when I did my ratings (ooopppssss maybe the CAA will now pull mine as well) the procedure was to slow the aircraft to establish the speed under which you start to lose control - also allows you to get an idea at which speed you can go around again - so fly the damn thing to the hover, raise the nose slightly to break the last bit of speed, also means you don't have to yank the power in, then as you level the ship, start to roll throttle off and cushion with collective.
A little diff on the R22 - since you don't have much rotor inertia - so choose a long flat surface such as a runway and then slide it on and use throttle to control yaw.
Back to the 120 - so if you are in the hover - the book says roll the throttle off and cushion with collective. Nuf said on this one.
Me thinks the instructor was doing the right thing. Me thinks if ESA had the info booklet prior to the accident (which we all know they did) and had put this to the industry then the poor guy would not look like the proverbial tool.
Witnessed one of the naughty 3 in Durban getting a 130 rating from the CAA man - there was no evidence of a fenestron briefing - or too much else for that matter.
So where does culpability lie - any half sane individual knows the answer.
If you have ever done instruction - a TR Control failure can be flown all the way to the hover - well at least when I did my ratings (ooopppssss maybe the CAA will now pull mine as well) the procedure was to slow the aircraft to establish the speed under which you start to lose control - also allows you to get an idea at which speed you can go around again - so fly the damn thing to the hover, raise the nose slightly to break the last bit of speed, also means you don't have to yank the power in, then as you level the ship, start to roll throttle off and cushion with collective.
A little diff on the R22 - since you don't have much rotor inertia - so choose a long flat surface such as a runway and then slide it on and use throttle to control yaw.
Back to the 120 - so if you are in the hover - the book says roll the throttle off and cushion with collective. Nuf said on this one.
Me thinks the instructor was doing the right thing. Me thinks if ESA had the info booklet prior to the accident (which we all know they did) and had put this to the industry then the poor guy would not look like the proverbial tool.
Witnessed one of the naughty 3 in Durban getting a 130 rating from the CAA man - there was no evidence of a fenestron briefing - or too much else for that matter.
So where does culpability lie - any half sane individual knows the answer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You've Got,
Aha ! That's what you would think, as I did despite 1,400 hours of instruction but it ain't the case.
Manual says, tr failure (not in hover) then autorotate ! Problem here is nobody said why. Apparently the effectiveness of a fenestrom falls off much more rapidly with reducing air speed than does a conventional tail rotor which means if you fly it into the hover, that's when you discover that you have no effectiveness. (Also had lesson on venturi build up effect which is why you must apply pedal before you lift into hover but this also was never mentioned in the training.)
Apparently on the 130 however, manual does say fly down to a certain speed and if you still have directional stability, perform a run on landing.
120 manual is quite clear on the autorotate instruction though, so instructor was in the wrong by the book, if they did fly down to hover...
Aha ! That's what you would think, as I did despite 1,400 hours of instruction but it ain't the case.
Manual says, tr failure (not in hover) then autorotate ! Problem here is nobody said why. Apparently the effectiveness of a fenestrom falls off much more rapidly with reducing air speed than does a conventional tail rotor which means if you fly it into the hover, that's when you discover that you have no effectiveness. (Also had lesson on venturi build up effect which is why you must apply pedal before you lift into hover but this also was never mentioned in the training.)
Apparently on the 130 however, manual does say fly down to a certain speed and if you still have directional stability, perform a run on landing.
120 manual is quite clear on the autorotate instruction though, so instructor was in the wrong by the book, if they did fly down to hover...
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four pages of bantering this thing and we are still at square one..
Back to the Manual:
"I quote from the Eurocopter manual Part 3.1 Emergency Procedures for the EC-120B "Meanwhile, depending on the many external enviornment, such as the type of terrain overflown, the pilot MAY have to adapt to the situation according to his experience."
Emergency Procedures are a guideline
Back to the Manual:
"I quote from the Eurocopter manual Part 3.1 Emergency Procedures for the EC-120B "Meanwhile, depending on the many external enviornment, such as the type of terrain overflown, the pilot MAY have to adapt to the situation according to his experience."
Emergency Procedures are a guideline
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, irrespective of what has been said here, neither Eurocopter SA or the CAA man have at any time come forward to say something here.
I find that typical of people who are so self righteous and "know it all". Their comments will and can put an end to all the speculation, and hopefully educate the rest of us.
What is the latest on the 3 Victims? Have they been sorted, have they got their instructor ratings back, is all forgiven, are they instructing again, or what?
I find that typical of people who are so self righteous and "know it all". Their comments will and can put an end to all the speculation, and hopefully educate the rest of us.
What is the latest on the 3 Victims? Have they been sorted, have they got their instructor ratings back, is all forgiven, are they instructing again, or what?
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clipboard.................
The problem and the solution have been asked and answered here for some time............Further nobody expects the CAA or Eurocopters to post on the subject. One will refer you to the rules, the other will refer you to the manual...........
The answer is in there somewhere...
Also curious as to what will happen on this matter once someone at CAA makes a decision.....Im still betting it will be an easy fix if all will smile a bit and be humble.
The problem and the solution have been asked and answered here for some time............Further nobody expects the CAA or Eurocopters to post on the subject. One will refer you to the rules, the other will refer you to the manual...........
The answer is in there somewhere...
Also curious as to what will happen on this matter once someone at CAA makes a decision.....Im still betting it will be an easy fix if all will smile a bit and be humble.
So is this a rerun of the 'problems' encountered primarily by the British Military with the Gazelle and 'Fenestron Stall'?
Several helos were totalled and in each case an undemanded yaw rate in the hover was experienced which did not appear to respond to pedal input.
Aerospatiale took one RN pilot who had experienced the situation and flew him in a Gaz with a TP at yaw rates of up to 120 deg/sec and proved conclusively that the aircraft would always stop yawing if you applied Full right pedal and kept it there.
The problem with the fenestron seemed to be that to control an unexpected yaw to the left, the amount of right pedal required was beyond what most pilots were prepared to input and instead of pushing more right pedal they assumed the TR had failed and popped the Gazelle onto the ground while it was still yawing.
The 120 crash sounds very similar as those not familiar with a fenetrons idiosycrasies might well react incorrectly when faced with an unexpected yaw rate.
Several helos were totalled and in each case an undemanded yaw rate in the hover was experienced which did not appear to respond to pedal input.
Aerospatiale took one RN pilot who had experienced the situation and flew him in a Gaz with a TP at yaw rates of up to 120 deg/sec and proved conclusively that the aircraft would always stop yawing if you applied Full right pedal and kept it there.
The problem with the fenestron seemed to be that to control an unexpected yaw to the left, the amount of right pedal required was beyond what most pilots were prepared to input and instead of pushing more right pedal they assumed the TR had failed and popped the Gazelle onto the ground while it was still yawing.
The 120 crash sounds very similar as those not familiar with a fenetrons idiosycrasies might well react incorrectly when faced with an unexpected yaw rate.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information Letter
Has anyone seen the information letter sent out by ESA on the EC120 as well as the much waited for taining document on the Fenestron.
All makes for an interesting read. Seems like the Feenstron does have the quirk of requiring lots of pedal (and us mere mortals are so used to the conventional system) so you end up under reacting. So that is probably what the guys did and ended up dumping it because they thought they were locked into a stalled system - wouldn't you if you were going round at the reported rate of yaw experienced.
A quick read of the ESA info letter reveals that all emergencies must be handled with an Auto and that it is only important/necessary to train to the flare and according to the letter the landing is left to chance or skill.!!!!
Thats got to hurt
So do the auto to 70 feet - start the flare - then its all up to chance and of course for the few that are skilled they may have a better chance.
A nicely written document HA HA....
All makes for an interesting read. Seems like the Feenstron does have the quirk of requiring lots of pedal (and us mere mortals are so used to the conventional system) so you end up under reacting. So that is probably what the guys did and ended up dumping it because they thought they were locked into a stalled system - wouldn't you if you were going round at the reported rate of yaw experienced.
A quick read of the ESA info letter reveals that all emergencies must be handled with an Auto and that it is only important/necessary to train to the flare and according to the letter the landing is left to chance or skill.!!!!
Thats got to hurt
So do the auto to 70 feet - start the flare - then its all up to chance and of course for the few that are skilled they may have a better chance.
A nicely written document HA HA....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote (. . . . . requiring lots of pedal (and us mere mortals are so used to the conventional system) so you end up under reacting. . . . . . .)
Are we to understand that an under-reacting pilot is now considered a fault with the helicopter? Sounds more like a fault IN the helicopter.
Pity I hadn't thought of it before though. Might have save me some embarrassment.
Are we to understand that an under-reacting pilot is now considered a fault with the helicopter? Sounds more like a fault IN the helicopter.
Pity I hadn't thought of it before though. Might have save me some embarrassment.