Sim Vs Actual

[Steve76]

Question for those out there who fly corperate, EMS, Offshore or whatever.... and utilise the services of a separate entity (FSI for eg.) for their training.

While I enjoy the junket in Florida and the great training there I really miss doing an auto, cat A reject etc... on the aircraft.

Here is a question for you guys.....

If both donks (eng) stopped how prepared do you think you would be to pull off the auto without damage to the aircraft?

Forget arguing about where and how high etc...just say 1000agl and surrounded by reasonable fields. What about how far you can glide and judging the choice of that landing area? Do you rate yourself highly?

I personally figure I have a 60 to 70 percent chance of getting away with it.........that might be ambitious.

[Nigel Osborn]

Hi Steve

I'm surprised your company doesn't practice autos and rejects; it is really a basic requirement.

Full EOLs in twins is no different to singles, max range still needs min rrpm and range speed, etc and the ability to select and reach a landing spot. You would be surprised how many pilots in wheeled helicopters forget to lower their wheels or simulate blowing their floats if over water. These days I believe most companies won't do full EOLs in the larger twins for economic reasons but should still practise to recovery.

All types of TO and LDG rejects should be practised. Certainly all the guys I've endorsed have done plenty whether on or offshore.:sad:

[Thomas coupling]

Do you not practice rejected take offs and landings, Steve.
No auto practice at all???

Is this the norm for 3 tonners and upwards? :eek:

[cpt]

On most medium twins I have flown untill now, full autorotation is simply not allowed by the RFM...I honestly believe that pratice autorotation with engine recovery does the trick with this type of helicopters.
Besides this, we must keep in mind we are not immune from a full loss of power even when flying a twin.

[peter manktelow]

I loved the C+ sim at FSI WPB but do not believe its fidelity is good enough to replace doing OEI training (and power recovery autos) in the actual machine. True, there are some "emergencies" that can only be done in the sim , namely (and particularly) tail rotor malfunctions.
I think the best option is a combination of training in the sim (say every couple of years) plus training in the actual aircraft at least annually.
For those of you who know "Mr. S76" (RK) ...he agrees 100% with the above.

:8

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

Full EOLs in twins is no different to singles

Maybe in a Part 27 machine derived from a single - most twins designed to Part 29, not required and possibly not achievable!

[IHL]

I think you're over optomistic Steve. I think its highly unlikely that one could dead stick a 76 without doing some damage.

I think unless you had a firm (paved) surface to land on you would either rip the gear off on a running landing or punch the gear up into the wheel wells on a zero speed.

My $.02 worth.

[Steve76]

Peter:
I certainly agree. I also have noted that flying the sim away from an OEI departure at 10500lb after a Cat A T/O is a doddle compared to the aircraft at well under that weight. If you think the C sim is average ...... get back in the A. I did enjoy chasing that 737 and flying under the Brookland Bridge thou.....:)

IHL: .....yeah you are probably right...but us young fellas rate ourselves eh! ;)

One other aspect of the dedicated FSI training is that guys are just not spending enough time on the aircraft. Lets consider that you are flying 300hrs a year EMS. Not a lot. 150hrs of this is the other guy with his hands on the stick and you are the switch bitch.

That totals about 100 landings and take offs that you do in a year. Take away the 3hrs of VFR and IFR training and I predict a further reduction in hands on ability.

I already have issues with cojoes arriving 30 to 40 ft above helipad, unable to contain a rate of decent and overshooting easy approaches. I don't think that sending them to the sim is going to help make my job any easier. :hmm:

[HeloTeacher]

Steve76,

You yourself know very well the damage done during training that has pushed your own employer to seek training on sims rather than the aircraft itself.

Part of the difference in performance between the sim and the actual aircraft in performing these maneuvers has to do with the fact that during training OEI limits are not used, only twin-engine limits and with a margin of protection to boot. Also, the variety of scenarios that can be attempted is more limited.

Annual recurrent in the sim protects the revenue generating aircraft from the damaging effects of training and can be well supported by line-training captains that spend their time ensuring that everyone is thinkig about what they learned on a daily basis. More than half the battle in an emergency is having a plan of attack, rather than being caught by surprise daydreaming. Training should not be happening only once a year but you don't need a dedicated aircraft beating up the circuit to do it.

In addition, I believe I know who you work for and they have a nasty habit of hiring the lowest time co-jo's they can find to ensure the lowest possible wages. One must have some hands-on experience to generate the skills in the first place. This is no slander against the co-pilots, rather the company the uses their eagerness to put them in aircraft they are not adequately prepared for.

[peter manktelow]

Helo Teacher

Quote
You yourself know very well the damage done during training that has pushed your own employer to seek training on sims rather than the aircraft itself.
Unquote


Helo Teacher.....your quote above !!
UNFAIR !!
Due to the understandable practice of companies not wishing to publish details of their incidents/accidents (litigation etc) we of the "great unwashed" , do not know all the details of that particular "training auto that went very wrong".

Simulator is great but as the ONLY training device , it is greatly lacking in its handling qualities compared to the actual aircraft. Conversely a properly trained TRAINING PILOT with an actual aircraft can still NOT simulate ALL emergencies...the SIM + AIRCRAFT combo is the only way to go.

I think that operator you mentioned , may have swung too hard the other way. There was a time that getting a Sim slot with that operator was damn nigh impossible.

I once worked with another Canadian IFR operator and watched as pilots gradually lost manipulative skills thru lack of realistic OEI training. That company also had a leaning away from "throttle pulling" and towards the Sim.

While on the subject of properly trained TRAINING PILOTS. I am always amazed that , unlike the Brit system , a Canadian training pilot does NOT undergo any formal training prior to assuming his duties as a "throttle puller". Okanagan , many years ago , tried to rectify this by insisting that Training Pilots must do an instructor's course. Unfortunately the good intent fell thru the cracks with the take over.

Perhaps that company you mentioned is fixing the wrong end of the bus.

.
:8

[leading edge]

It is easy to understand why any operator wouldn't want full touch down autos in a heavy twin to become the norm for training.

It isn't really necessary to use the aircraft when the same can be done in the sim to a level whereby at least the occupants wouldn't be injured. Who cares, if the aircraft is damaged in the unlikely event it happened for real? So much would depend on the touchdown area anyway.

There have been some examples of a full touch down auto in a heavy twin, notably the Bristow Super Puma in 1995 that had a lightening strike on the tail rotor causing the need to auto into the North Sea.

I did see a video recently which showed the S-92 undergoing full touchdown autos for certification. Certainly no wheels ripped off or undercarriage going up therough the sponsons, looked ok to me. Maybe Nick would be able to post it for us?

LE

[peter manktelow]

Autorotations in twins.

Touchdown with both throttles still retarded is risky and was dropped by Okanagan years ago but they did do them.

Touchdown with both throttles full forward is OK but a little artificial. What are we aiming for with the auto ?

For my money (IFR Offshore) , I want the guys to get practice at the entry and then the checks on the way down ie into wind , gear , floats etc etc) Trying to reach a particular spot (offshore) is not as important an issue.
If you dont get the entry right then it is all a bit academic. Surprising how many pilots fixate on the N2 instead of the Nr and also surprising how uncomfortable some of the entries are when pilots have not done them for a while. ie lousy airspeed control , poor Nr control , skid ball out the side of the aircraft.

At the bottom ??.....well we know that it is surviveable even if it is screwed up.

I have been doing (IFR) autos in the S76 from 3,000 feet and simulating sea level at 1000 feet. Power recovery ie both throttles returned to fly/full forward is confirmed no later than 1500 feet.

I once had a line training pilot pull both throttles on me in a 76 in the climb. It was bloody horrible and is a NO NO now. Pierre , you know of whom I speak.

:8

[WLM]

:O sounds like you really need me as your co joe Steve;) ;)

[Steve76]

Gentlemen,

I believe that Peter has more the gist of what I am speaking forth.
The experience of the copilot does not always correlates to their ability to adapt to the larger and much faster twin. I think there are plenty of examples to this end in each of our minds.

The problem is the actual ability to know the aircraft through time spent flying it by the seat of your pants.

I am always trying to prompt the low time guys to "strap" the 76 on and take charge. She's a slippery one and if you are not in control it will take its head quite liberally at your expence. To many of them are often passangers in this machine.

Being 100% sim trained you further losing the limited "hands on feel" of the actual aircraft.

I can do a thousand auto's in the sim and still not feel 100% about being successful in the aircraft. I want to have that feeling which only comes by hands on experience. I and my employer should feel secure in the knowledge that faced with a large paddock in an emergency that I will get the aircraft onto the ground in one piece needing only to have the primary cause of the problem fixed and no secondary damage from my flying.
I will be extremely disappointed as a professional pilot, if faced with good odds I b%gger a perfectly OK helicopter through lack of currency.

Heloteacher:

It is one thing to have everyone on the same page for an emergency. We can teach anybody how to read the Emergency Proceedures Checklist. Where we blow it is being able to perform the emergency. I don't think getting the checklist correct and wrecking the aircraft scores well....
I started this thread not because I doubt that we can follow a checklist or memory item but because I just can't see someone who cannot judge an approach to a helipad sorting out an emergency like an OEI to a very restricted area (Eg.) Its not helping by being restricted to Sim training only. It is just disadvantaging the guys.

I also fly with Training Captains (I think thats what you mean by Line Captains?) on a regular basis and not one of them has ever wanted to discuss an emergency while trudging through another hour of straight and level. Often I will prompt them to test me or enter a discussion regarding "what would you do if.....?" Particularily useful for calls at 3am in the morning.

I don't think that many of the TP's know any more than the other pilots. Some of the TP's (go on XNR take a bow.....ya know ya wanna!) are exceptional but most of them have a third or less time on type than half the Captain staff.
What's to learn there besides SOP's??? And what can one TP really gauge on a operational flight once a month (if that) and when half the guys couple up the aircraft thus reducing hands on time to five minutes of approach and ground taxying.

This is a pointless rant.
Our op's won't change in a hurry but it will be interesting to see how pilots cope. We have a decent bunch who will deal with it as best as they can.....IF they can self analyse the impending issue and work within themselve to raise a standard rather than become lazy.

I think Peter has seen it all before and knows there has to be a happy medium. No one direction solves any problems.

Personally, I know I get a lot of satisfaction about jumping in a friends Robbie and banging off autos and full stuck pedals for an hour.

.....Makes me feel like a pilot again.

Thanks to all for your opinions.
PS: WLM - been there done that! get your arse over here!!

[NickLappos]

having done a bunch of FSI recurrencies, and also helped set up those sims, I believe the sim is absolutely the best way to practice most procedures.

1) The actual handling of the 76 family (and most other modern helos) is plain vanilla enough so that very few pilots will mess up a procedure because they can't get the handling right. They will mess it up because they don't know where to look, or they can't recall the proper procedure during the high workload situation. These are the things the sim lets you study and practice so well.

2) Most real flight training can't duplicate the things that actually fail, so you end up pulling back engines in flight and calling it training. What gets us is whacking the ground/'water during complex piloting tasks while in degraded visual situations. Engines don't quit often enough to worry that much about.

3) The big problem with real airplanes for emergency training is that we don't actually get surprised by situations - no pucker factor. It is just not the same when your instructor/buddy asks what you do when a chip light comes on. Try this:


Nick's handy simulator of a simulator :

Make a set of 8 1/2 x 11 (A4) cards with your helo's caution panel copied on them, literally all the possible capsules. Add the basic gages arranged in the array they have on your panel. Make the gages plain circles, with their labels like "#1 Engine Oil Pressure" in the circle. Mount a clip on the panel somewhere you can clip the card without obscuring any real gages (least you block one of those pesky little suckers and it knows, cause it will pick that second to drop to zero!)

On each card, take a red pen and make it an emergency. For example, on one card boldly circle the caution capsule for "Transmission Oil Pressure" and then put a red needle on the TOP gage with that needle pointing straight down. Make a whole set of these cards, one for each possible emergency procedure in the flight manual.

On the next torture session, oops, I mean on your next dual ride, ask your instructor to randomly pick a card, and without saying anything, just mount it on the clip sometime during the flight.

It is amazing how your brain leaps when you see that card. You actually have to read the caution light, scan the gage and Make A Decision! While Flying! Without Time To Think!

[Steve76]

Sounds like just the project for my copilot tomorrow Nick.
Good idea!

:ok:

[straitman]

Interesting Steve.

I have to say though "how quickly we/you forget"

You were the new kid on the 76 some (few) years ago and almost begged to be sent to FSI.

ALL the training is valuable it's just about getting the maximum value out of it. The ground at the bottom of the auto will probably have as much to do with the results as anything else.

Remember the priority are to walk away from the auto and (secondary) to cause minimum damage!


Sounds like just the project for my copilot tomorrow Nick.
Just another suggestion Steve. "Maybe you would learn more by doing it yourself":confused:

[SASless]

Nick,

"Without time to think!" Gee, if I get a Generator light....or an inverter light....door open light....or any other myriad of lights and/or problems.......do I really need to leap into action...throwing switches...grabbing the checklist from its holder...barking orders and commands at the NFP ? Or....if we analyze the "gotta do something right now" emergencies....we find very few events that demand that "immediate" reaction without benefit of "Thinking".

I suggest....that fly...think....decide....do....is usually a better choice than .....decide...do.....think...fly.

If a tail rotor gearbox and associated bits depart the aircraft.....I can see an 'immediate" action being required....or if I hear sounds that suggest a cast iron failure involving the main transmission....or bright billowing flames licking about the thing I hang my wallet too.....then yes...."immediate" actions might just be the thing. Otherwise.....punch the clock...fly the aircraft....decide what is wrong....develop a plan....initiate the plan...deal with the problem.

[NickLappos]

There you go, SASless, reading what I wrote! Gee...

What I meant was a hyperbole, a purposely exaggerated statement to express a point about the perception a pilot has while flying, where workload makes everything come too fast. To an unprepared or inexperienced pilot it feels like you don't have time to think!

I am glad you brought up the subject, because leaping to "solutions" is the biggest problem with pilot error accidents. If the pilot keeps the rotor in the green, and preserves altitude, all else can wait a bit for serious reflection.

OK, you can go back to the football game!

[SASless]

Nick,

Knowing your position on these issues...from several debates in the past....I knew you what were trying to say....is that sitting in the crewroom with flashcards or the RFM and going over procedures is one thing....but really doing them with all the distractions and stress in the cockpit while flying can be a much different thing. I was just doing a bit of Pprune fishing.....could see the cork bobbing for a flash just before it went down with a big "Ka-sploosh" sound.

I do read everything you write.....and agree in most cases....which scares me knowing you were both CAV and a Cobra Pilot. But then we know about CAV guys! Since you guys have trouble tying boot laces....I reckon that is why the Tanker Boot was invented.:ok:

[Steve76]

Hello Staitman,

I have always appreciated the quality of training at FSI....even as a kid watching my old man go through it.

You seem to have completely missed my point in this thread. Its nothing to do with FSI's level of training just the missed opportunities on the aircraft. FSI is superb.

I was no keener than every other pilot to get to FSI but it was never going to happen through ESSO. So how can you say I "begged" to get a trip there? That's a huge exaggeration.

At any rate; since I have been a couple of times now I realise why you spent more of your time planning what rental car to hire, arguing the missus into business class, upgrading your hotel room (while trying figure out how to make ESSO pay for it all) than studying for the course.

Then again: after flying 10000hrs along the same parallel east to west, west to east, maybe I would be more interested in the excursion out of the "truman zone" than the job too.... :bored:

[Airtoday]

Hi Steve

Going back to your basic question of how prepared I would be for a double engine failure in a twin.
I would say that I would be much better prepared for this at the end of an intensive simulator session than I would be a few months later just before such a session.
If you can get them the simulator sessions are of tremendous value.
I have just come back from one and I know there is nothing you can do with your own aircraft without breaking it that can replicate it as much as a Sim.
The drive failure scenario is the best...you cannot do that in your aircraft in practice but you can in the Simulator. If you can just keep up every opportunity you have to go to a simulator to prepare you for the worse then do it.


All the best

[Steve76]

Airtoday,

Yes, I agree the driveshaft failure and all the tailrotor stuff is excellent. It is nice to get all that under control in the sim.

The last session was a riot with Emmet (been there shot that, got the medal to show for it :D ) and Mike (shake de chicken legs....) Moran. Two great operators with a lifetime of stories and experience to teach.

I only wish I was booked a little further into the canuk winter.... mid 20's in temp is a nice change during January here :p

[cpt]

just coming back from WPB ....to me the hairising one is the "collective drive case" on the "76" ... training in these conditions is an outsdanding asset.
I just wish to go back at FSI on a regular basis, but that another story!

[NickLappos]

Steve76 and other ppruners:

I truly value the simulator as a training tool, very important for modern training but I caution against one very important limitation:

The training sims have absolutely no validity when you go beyond the normal flight envelope. By that I mean that you can be easily fooled into thinking that if the sim does a certain thing, that is the true behavior of the aircraft. Nothing can be more wrong.

The validation of the sim never covered its response to tail rotor failures other than validating the procedures as written in the flight manual. Those who note excellent fly-away capability while starting from a high hover, for example, might be rudely surprised at how the real aircraft behaves in a real tr failure. Similarly, it tells you nothing valid when the rotor goes beyond or below the green arc. Same for airspeed, and power, load factor and sideslip.

In short, the sim is a sim, not an aircraft, and it is a sim that only provides answers to questions within the normal flight envelope. This is true of all training sims, regardless of what the builders may say.

The Sikorsky test pilots coined the desease "Simulitus" to describe those who believe everything a sim tells them. For your own protection, imagine the sim to be a window that looks out on a vast painting. In the normal flight envelope, the painting is quite real, and can be trusted to guide you effectively. Beyond that boundary, it is probably crap, but beguiling and convincing crap.

[Steve76]

...and there you have it gentlemen. You can argue with me but who is ready to take on Nick?
Thanks for your input Nick.

[Rich Lee]

Were I the owner of a company that used twin engine helicopters, I would not allow twin engine idle or twin engine off touchdown autorotative training. I would allow twin engine idle or twin engine off autorotative descent training with a power recovery at an appropriate altitude by trained and designated instructors.

The risk of losing a helicopter in a touchdown autorotative training incident would be unacceptable to me.

Roy G Fox (Chief Safety Engineer BHTI) wrote a paper published by the Flight Safety Foundation in August 1991 entitled "Measuring Safety in Single- and Twin-Engine Helicopters". A worldwide study of Bell civil and military turbine helicopter accidents (1970-87) concluded that 3 % of fatal accidents in twin engine helicopters were due to an engine related initiating cause. The percentage of all twin engine helicopter airworthiness related fatalities was 25%. The difference may be related to the complexity of twin engine helicopters (non-linear complex systems).

Human error is implicated in 70 to 80% (88% of fatal helicopter accidents) of all civil and military accidents in aviation.

Simulators and task trainers have proven useful for training pilots to handle non-linear complex failures and reducing human error. Particularly fuel management tasks that can cause a dual engine flameout and weather related tasks that reduce weather related loss of aircraft. Simulation is, in my opinion, the only safe method to safely train to respond to various tail rotor failures and drive system emergencies.

As for Nick's comments regarding recognition and reaction times in a task loaded situation, a UK CAA study showed that a task loaded pilot can require as much as 4 seconds to detect and react to an emergency. In a non-task loaded environment the time can be less than 2 seconds.

Teaching emergency procedures when a pilot is not task loaded can lead to a very optimistic belief in the efficacy of that training.

[SHORTBACKANDSIDES]

Steve76,

I think I DO recall you begging for FSI. Sitting in the phone corner, winding Doc up after lunch.

If you weren't begging for fsi for coeys, how did you fill in all those daily visits to the Chief Pilots office?????


Nothing personal, why you nofor ringen me.



SBS:ooh:

[Steve76]

SBS,

Why you nofor ringin me?

:hmm:

[straitman]

I was no keener than every other pilot to get to FSI but it was never going to happen through ESSO. So how can you say I "begged" to get a trip there? That's a huge exaggeration.

I believe it goes something like "Man what I'd give for a trip to the Simulator" :=

[Hilico]

On the subject of sims, John Farley (Harrier Test Pilot, columnist in the UK's Flyer magazine) reckons they're a great tool when used within the flight envelope, but he goes even further than Nick does in stressing their limitations - he believes they should freeze as soon as the established envelope is exceeded, just so no-one is fooled into thinking they can pull really extreme manouvres (sorry, manouvers).

For my part, I used to try autos with Microsoft FS2000 from 1000' over Meigs. At the bottom, you could keeping pulling in pitch and float at least a quarter of the length of the runway. Now I know the 206 has a high-inertia MR, but...

[AirJockey]

First of all, don`t get personal on this webpage folks.

Only good things can come out of sim. training. You will sometimes crash in a sim., but you`ll walk away from it and you have learned from it. It`s also cheaper to "crash" than the real thing or find weaknesses in your own or others skills.
CRM is also an important factor to be checked in a sim. Don`t forget to use all your available resourses fellow captains!

Nick, being the walking database you are, do you have any info on TR controll and drive failures during different stages of flight where the pilots have made a "successful" landing? I`m interrested in knowing what happened and what they did to controll it.? Not much on the web, or in any books for that matter. FM manuals are good tools, but are neves really tested on this subject.
I guess Vietnam most have been more or less a "test" ground for these types of failures. :confused: :ok:

[IHL]

cpt : its been a couple of years since I have flown a 76.
I don't recall nor do I recall hearing of "collective drive case" failure.

My last trip to FSI was 2001 and I don't recall any of the Instructors mentioning it either.

Now just because I don't recall doen't mean it doesn't exsists.

Please fill me in.

[wish2bflying]

Hilico, I can tell you that now in FS2004 they've done away with autorotation entirely. If you fail the engine, the rotors spin down and stop, then you fall out of the sky.

Give me X-Plane (http://www.x-plane.com/) any day - get a full set of flight controls, calibrate it to your preference, get a wraparound display, and you've got your own part task trainer at home. Flight models are far superior to Microsoft. If you don't mind poor visuals and no real ATC, it is well worth looking into.

[Steve76]

Hi IHL,

I assumed that cpt was referring to the collective to yaw coupling and the resultant of pushing the right pedal to the floor during a tail rotor emergency.

Hope all is well,

Steve

[IHL]

Thanks Steve , I thought it was some new emergency.