Mountain Flying

[yogibear]

Greetings fellow rotorheads (tongue in cheek),
do any of you know of any training schools that do any mountain flying ?
Would like to brush up on my skills...

Seeya soon

The Bear...

------------------
Chopper pilots do it vertically....:-)

[tiltrotor]

Bear, the probably best and world recognized school would be Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flying in Penticton, B.C.
The top of the range, however, not cheap either.

If you are just looking for an opeartor, there are many outfits over in Canada that will be able to put you through a mountain course on many different types of aircraft.

[Chopper Moore]

Bear, try Sloane Helicopters based in Northampton, they do mountain flying courses in the UK or you could try their operation out in Mallorca - http://www.sloanehelicopters.com/

Cheers,

Chopper Moore

[yogibear]

Cheers guys ,
Will get in touch with them..
Mean time if you know of any others in the U.K plse let me know...


Seeya

The Bear..........

------------------
Chopper pilots do it vertically....:-)

[alltorque]

Can anyone comment on the requirements for alpine flying.
Heli ops in the Snow Fields in Australia (NSW) are growing and I would be keen to know the general parameters for HeliSkiing and Alpine operations ratings.

[offshoreigor]

To YogiBear

CHC in Penticton is definately the first choice (went there in 87) Jan Rustad knows his stuff. Highland in Castlegar, BC, is also very good. Used to be taught by Cecil Hidebrandt, don't know if he's still there. Haven't heard any complaints.

Hope this helps ya out!!!

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

I made sum spellin mistakes, oops



[This message has been edited by offshoreigor (edited 11 November 2000).]

[Flying Lawyer]

HeliAir run mountain flying courses. I haven't done one yet, but all reports I've heard are very favourable.
The main HeliAir schools are at Denham and Wellesbourne. Their mountain flying courses are held in Snowdonia.

[Randy_g]

Although they don't operate in Oz, try talking to either Alpine Helicopters in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, or chc's advanced flight school in Penticton, B.C. Alpine is one of the worlds leaders in heli-skiing, (they've been at it from the start basically) and chc's school is the world's oldest mountain flying school. (over 50 years of continuous operation) They train the Canadian military, and some of the U.S. Navy pilots. Hope this helps.

[offshoreigor]

Hey Flying Lawyer:

I thought we were talking about "MOUNTAIN" Flying. I didn't realize they had any in the UK.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor :eek:

[Flying Lawyer]

Now look here, OffShore ...


They may be just big hills by Canadian standards, but when you're looking up from the valleys, they are mountains!

Ah Snowdonia - Land of my Fathers .....

:)

[offshoreigor]

Dear Flying Lawyer:

No insult intended! I must say, you have an excellent sense of humour.

I'm sure the 'Big Hills' are more than adequate for teaching the basic principals of mountain flying. As any experienced mountain pilot will tell you, it doesn't matter where you are, the principals are the same.

Cheers & apologies OffshoreIgor

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif


[This message has been edited by offshoreigor (edited 17 November 2000).]

[Heliflyer]

A bit late in replying but I've done a comprehensive Mountain Flying Course with

http://www.bhh.co.uk
Biggin Hill Helicopters, based at Biggin Hill Airport.

Twice a year, they have taken the fleet of 2xH300, 1x206B, 1xH500 to a lovely hotel in North Wales, and Saturday and Sunday are spent around Snowdonia National Park.

I thoroughly enjoyed the camaraderie (sp?) of this weekend and rather sad when we had to fly back on Monday morning.

I can recommend it, and with their HeliSport membership, one can get a wet rate of a JetRanger and H500 for £299+VAT/hour.

(Bill, can I have some commission now?)

Darren

[332man]

go even higer an fly with air zermatt with landings in 13'000 ft around the matterhorn.
They do operate SA 313, As 350, sa315 or ec 120

[tailrotor]

Hey guys ,
Compliments of the season to you and yours.

Can anyone advise me on Mountain flying in the U.K. i.e Who and where..

Would appreciate it.

Thanks.

------------------
** To hover is devine but to MOO is bovine **

[Thomas coupling]

Check out the thread: 31st December 2000 "mountain flying".


http://www.gograph.com/Images-7298/AnimatedGif/redstar.gif


------------------
Thermal runaway.

[yogibear]

Thanks for all the info guys...
I certainly will be getting hold of all these folks......the moment i can see the length of my back yard !!!!!!


Cheers

The bear

------------------
..AD ASTRA PER NOSTRUM..
(Dont pick your nose on finals)

[Robsibk]

Hi There!

As I'm a low time'er, learning a lot in this forum (Flying in snow)I was wondering if you guys with that 1000 of hours can tel us something of your experience about Mountain flying!specialy about wind conditions.
Thank'S and I hope we can learn as much as by the topic Flying in Snow.
Roberto

[PurplePitot]

Standby for more from TC methinks........

[cheapseat]

Best to practice in daylight, preferably am, then SAR boys get a decent nights sleep.

[Hoverboy]

Wow! This could become a lengthy thread!
What kind of mountains are we talking? I've flown (and landed!) Astar and 500 at over 8,000 feet in Western Canada, a few summers of seismic fun.
Performance charts help establish weights and what your expectations should be, but the winds can be cruel. Do you know the basics such as a contour crawl to find the wind?

[cheapseat]

I say again .........

[PurplePitot]

I tried a few in Austria. Redlining a bell 212 onto the top of a mountain at 15000ft is a bit of a hoot.. Have to agree with Cheapseat though as I'm afraid the whole affair is a little fraught!

[Multp]

Do it dual with an expert before you try it on your own, please.
There are a few experienced mountain flying helo instructors in UK; if it IS the UK you're talking about. If not you should be able to find one on the grapevine in your own country.(Sorry, didn't check your ID before reply.)

[Robsibk]

First of all,thanK's for the replys!

To Hoverboy:
I got my CPL with Canadian Helicopters in Toronto.As you know the area there is flat like a pankake!I'm trying to move to Western Canada If I get my permanent residence visa,so this are the mountains I was talking about.Some advicements ???Can you tell me more about the basics ,contour and crawl.Thank's

To PurplePilot:
As I'm from Austria(Innsbruck)I'm interested in wich mountain you where flying ,and wich company?Thank's

Thank's again !
Roberto

[PurplePitot]

I had a five week high mountain landing course courtesy of your Air Force! we started training on the little bumps at 8000ft and worked up to grossvenidiger and grossglockner at around 13000ft. Not much help for you I'm afraid! I bumped into a fair few Austrian rotary pilots in the Barfly club in downtown Vienna I don't suppose you were one of them?

[Robsibk]

First of all thank's for your replys!
To Hoverboy:
I got my CPL with Canadian Helicopters in Toronto.I'm trying to move to western Canada if I get the permanent resident visa,so this are the mountains I'm interested.I live in Austria so I'M used to mountains.Can you tell me more about the contour crawl to find the wind.This are the things I wana know from you guys!
Thank's

To Purple Pilot:
Where in Austria were you flying I'm from Innsbruck.Wich mountain was that?and wich company?
Thank's also for your reply.

To all,Thank's

[eden]

Hello Roberto - Mountain Flying ..... I could talk for a long time about it, experiences, theory, Weather, Winds but it would become the posting from hell. I 've just been up in Scotland's (4000 footers) having a wee look around.

I have 3 years day /night SAR experience in the hills in Scotland and a smattering of Bosnia time.

I would be delighted to answer specific questions and I am sure that there will be many more flugeners who will be better equipped than I to play a part in answering your questions.

By way of a gentle intro - Firstly, start flying in the Mountains with people you know have a lot of experience within the Mountain range you wish to fly in. Then from there ENSURE you are very aware of local weather effects. This done - some ground reading prep is required perhaps a spell of refreshing DA & performance issues , Physiological effects (such as false horizons & disorientation) and before you get anywhere near the CUMULO GRANITE prep a route to fly and try to achieve a pre-planned number of training objectives in good weather conditions in consultation with you're experienced colleague.

Some other issues to be aware of will include(this is not the exhaustive list) -
1. Wind Patterns & Strengths / Demarcation lines
2. Escape Routes / Transit Flying/ Recce/Pwr Cx/Circuits/Approaches/Overshoot
Landings / Take off

3. Terrain - Pinnacles, Ridges & Saddles, Spurs, Ledges, Bowls, Valleys,

4. Snow Ops / icing / Turbulence
5. By way of telling you the obvious.... Know your limits and adjust your ambitions to suit them ..........NEVER TRY TOO HARD!! and if the conditions are marginal - retire to the bar and smile at the mountains telling them you'll see them another day.

I've touched on some of the areas you need to think about but not all ..... and I would be willing to discuss (by email or this forum) some of the more practical and theoretical aspects should you wish ....... with some assistance (no doubt) from the vast wealth of experience available.

regards

eden

[Flying Lawyer]

Eden
You say "I could talk for a long time about it, experiences, theory, Weather, Winds but it would become the posting from hell."
We can't let you get away with a tantalising offer like that! :)
If you find a free moment, would you expand on the topics you've mentioned - with examples from your own experiences? Perhaps over a series of posts as and when you have time?
A "posting from hell"? Far from it! This has potential to become an interesting and very valuable thread.
(I hope this doesn't make you regret your kind offer! :) )

[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 14 March 2001).]

[Hoverman]

Good post, Eden.
Good idea, F/L

[Robsibk]

Hi Eden!
Well that sounds great and as Flying Lawyer says ,we can't let you go away after such an ofert!
If you don't mind let's talk on the forum, so others can have part of it.Let's start with points 1,2 for the begining(I hope I'm not rude).

To PurplePilot.
So what do you think from the Austrian militery?Are they as good as the guys in Penticton?Where are you from?

I'm with you Hoverman!

Roberto

[knxhyy]

Would'nt it be fantastic to get some experienced mountain flyers to pass on basic their experience on this subject.

I have flown in the french alps in both r22 and r44 with an experienced mountain pilot and alone. We landed an r22 Beta 2 at 9000ft +20'c half fuel zero wind. We also climbed to 11000ft up the glacier on Mont Blanc. Part of this guys training in the GB army was to spend a full month on the ground with the Austrian army studying the wind patterns. I probally learned more in 5 days than in eight years of flying.

[eden]

Thank you for your kind words and the invitation. I will have to do some work on this and produce a few graphics ....cos words ain't gonna be enough. So bear with me and I will endeavour to assist. in the meantime I know there are many more people out there .....more qualified than I (i'm sure) to give you the info as well.

So out of the woodwork with you.... fliers

[This message has been edited by eden (edited 15 March 2001).]

[buju]

I've never operated in Europe but +20C at 9000'?
In PNG at 10,000'the highest temp I can remember was around +15C.
I think you should go with somebody experienced in high alt.ops and they should allow you to get a good feel of the A/C and the performance differences you will experience ie more TR and MR pitch higher turbine temps faster approach speeds sluggish response etc
Don't approach a ridgeline to cross straight on in marginal VFR if you can't clearly see whats on the other side but rather parallel or on a shallow angle close to where you want to cross.You should as previously mentioned always have an escape route that allows maximum benefit for minimum input.
Slow shallow approaches power in early minimum cylic and coll.corrections don't hesitate to abort and GA if in doubt.
The highest landings for me was Mt.Wilhelm PNG an RCH under 15,000'in a BA squirrel and H 500ER.

I pass on what was passed on to me

Regards

[CTD]

This is a complicated subject, and a difficult one to comment on in broad terms because of this complexity. There are so many factors that even a very basic overview would be too exhaustive to post here.

Mountain flying is not necessarily about the highest or biggest. Good techniques work in rough terrain at 3000' the same as they do at 18,000'. Aircraft performance plays a big role, but for the most part is predictable, and planning can minimize its effect. One thing I will mention which must be considered when operating over a large density altitude range is the effect Hd has on autorotation RPM and performance. She's not going to behave at all like she did in school! Care should be taken to ensure your auto-rev adjustment is optimized, and that sufficient RPM is available at the lower altitudes at light weight.

In my experience, the greatest challenge to the mountain pilot is the unpredictability of the wind due to....
1. Uneven heating and convective instability. This can result from the sun shining on dark trees, white snow, water, grass etc., lack of sun on a shadowed slope, the cooling effect of a glacier, snow patch or water, or in some cases even the exchange of latent heat from cloud formation in rising air.
2. Topographic features, and the resulting wind properties such as mechanical turbulance, direction change, vertical wind components, demarcation lines, boundry layers etc.

The pilot must familiarize himself with these factors and their effects. Then, when he has them mastered, be prepared for Mother Nature to change the rules.

A good start for an inexperienced mountain pilot would be to read up on some of the topics Eden mentioned in his first post. Then take a course. Then be careful.

Rob asked about the Contour Crawl....it is a method of mechanically determining wind information by making multiple passes in different directions, comparing IAS vs. groundspeed, and heading vs. drift. Usually used in areas where wind information is not available from other sources (leaves, grass, water, smoke etc).

[Thomas coupling]

My concern, further generated by postings on a topic of this complexity, is that someone may literally print the thread off, and go and try it!! Don't laugh, it's not beyond the realms of probability.
Suffice to say, to those who haven't but would like to :

Please, please go thru an acredited facility before trying any advanced operations, in your aircraft. Aviation is not a game.

Sorry to sound so sombre.




------------------
Thermal runaway.

[Robsibk]

To Eden!

I'm looking forward to see your next post,it sounds quite interesting,and I'm sure not for me alone!Thank's

Also thanK's to Buju,TC, and CTD for explaining some of the basics and the contour crawl thing,sounds complicated!

I know that you can only learn this flying with lots of experience and years,but its interesting talking to guys that have that experience.You know, for low time pilots and students you are something like Gods!(I hope that was not to exagerated)you know what I mean!


Roberto

[Hoverboy]

CTD, one of the best, concise definitions of the Contour Crawl I've heard!
Basically just flying back and forth past the proposed landing site, but paying close attention to the reaction of the aircraft. Does it have a tendency to slide in towards the spot or does it want to fall away?
For any beginner, I take the comments of having professional guidance as the best solution, however... some people (like myself) never had the opportunity.
Don't hesitate to keep the load reduced and some residual power to spare.
Any advice posted on this or any board is simply that, advice. There is certainly lots of bad advice available free almost everywhere... not that there is bad advice here, but nothing beats the guidance of a qualified professional.
Be careful... the hills can bite!

[paco]

If it helps, here is an extract from a book wot I wrote. I would welcome any comments to put me straight (no flames, please!). Sorry about the lack of pictures, I haven't yet worked out how to get them in a message.

cheers

phil


Mountain Flying

In the mountains, general principles common to other areas will be vastly different. You must be prepared to adapt your flying techniques as the need arises, for the peculiarities of the region and the type of aircraft. In other words, have not only Plan A, but Plan B, C, etc. up your sleeve, because, very often, once you’ve looked at a site and gone round for finals, you will find a cloud has got there before you! You cannot afford to assume that a particular situation is the same as, or similar to, any other you might have encountered previously. You can also expect fog, especially in the early morning, which will often stick to the sides of valleys for quite some time.

In UK, mountainous areas include Scotland and Wales, the Lake and Peak Districts, and generally any hilly country above 1500 feet amsl, although a geologist would probably expect to see 2000. In many other parts of the world, these would be considered as just foothills. In Canada, look out for Designated Mountain Areas, which naturally include the Rockies, extending into the USA.

Performance changes drastically when both temperature and height increase—just the opposite to flying in cold weather, but you knew that anyway. As far as altitude is concerned, low-level operations (below about 5000 feet) probably won't need you to get too concerned, apart from taking notice of airspeed placards and power limitations, because some of the power lost with altitude is regained with cooler temperatures. You will find that at least 75% power is available to a fair height, but be careful.

Power available is reduced with height (and temperature), and rotors turn at the same speed, so, as you increase altitude, higher pitch and power settings will be required (in some helicopters, like the 500C, the rotor blades will stall before you reach engine limits). The dynamic pressure applied to the ASI is also reduced, so IAS will read less in relation to TAS, so, if you maintain a particular airspeed, your groundspeed will increase accordingly, and you will be going faster than you think.

Density Altitude is your real altitude resulting from the effects of height, temperature and humidity. The idea is that the more the density of the air decreases for any of those reasons, the higher your machine thinks it is, with all the problems that that entails. The effects are found at sea level, as well as in mountainous areas, when temperatures are high – for example, 90 degrees (F) at sea level is really 1900 feet as far as your aircraft is concerned. In extreme circumstances, you may have to restrict your operations to early morning or late afternoon in some areas. Here is a chart of Density Altitudes:

(can't get the chart in)

12000’ 13000 13600 14200 14750 15400 16000 16550 17150

Larger control movements will be needed, with more lag, so controls must be moved smoothly and gradually, or the effects may well cancel each other out – you may find yourself on the ground well before that large handful of collective pitch even takes effect! Rotor RPM will rise very quickly with the least excuse.

Your maximum weight for a given altitude (and vice versa), as well as cruising speed in relation to them both should be known, at least approximately, in advance. You also need to know the Hover ceiling In and Out of Ground Effect (HIGE/HOGE) for any weight, so you know you can come to a low hover properly, however briefly, and recover from an unsuitable landing site (hovering should actually be minimised, partly because you can’t rely on ground effect being present, and you have less power anyway, but also because you need to keep a little up your sleeve if the wind shifts, or you begin to lose tail rotor authority. Having said that, no-hover landings are not recommended, because of the chances of snagging the skids on something). Check the performance charts in the back of the Flight Manual, and start practising hovers about 1-2 feet off the ground, bearing in mind, of course, that the said charts were established by test pilots, in controlled situations.

If you allow for these effects as part of your flight planning, fine, but it's easy to get used to a particular place with a particular air density and a corresponding take-off run, base leg, etc., and you may get caught out one day when things change.

Mountain flying involves a bit of psychology, as it requires a good deal of self-control, because you will have to overcome a certain amount of fear and tension, which is not good when you really need to be relaxed on the controls, and some optical illusions.

Almost the first thing you will notice is the lack of a natural horizon, and maybe want to use the mountain tops or sides as a substitute. This, however, will probably cause a climb, or other exaggerated attitudes, and make it difficult to estimate the height of distant ground, either from a cockpit or on the ground itself, so you will find it best to superimpose a horizon of your own below the peaks. This is where using your instruments will help, both to keep attitude and give you a good idea of your height and speed (however, you’re not supposed to be instrument flying!).

Close to the ground, you will get an impression of increased speed, especially near to a ridge. For example, climbing along a long shallow slope is often coupled with an unconscious attempt to maintain height without increasing power so, unless you keep an eye on the ASI, you will be in danger of gradually reducing speed—if your airspeed is reducing, then either the nose has been lifted or you're in a downdraught (downdraughts will be associated with a loss of height or airspeed for the same power).

The strength of downdraughts can frequently exceed your climbing capabilities. Strong updraughts can suspend you in mid-air with zero power – if it subsides suddenly, you will be going down faster than you can apply it (sometimes, waggling the cyclic gently will spill the lift for you). A lack of cloud above, i.e. descending air, is a possible indication of a downdraught. Do not fight it, but guide the aircraft towards a lifting slope. A helicopter might get help from the ground cushion, but the effect will be less on a slope or grass. When valley flying, upslopes or slopes exposed to the sun can produce updraughts, so place yourself on a converging course to the line of the ridge and positioned to obtain a straight flight path two thirds up the slope and one across, which is generally the area of smoothest flight. However, local conditions could vary this.

(picture here)

You could climb on a lee slope (that is, the other side from where the wind is coming from), taking advantage of the updraught formed by stronger wind returning on itself (i.e. a backlash, tending to occur with abrupt surfaces), but beware of power limitations with speed reduction.

(another piccie here)

Also, there is so little room to manoeuvre if something goes wrong, or you meet someone coming the other way. If you have to do this, converging on the ridge line at 45o gives you the best chance of an escape route.

Similarly, try and avoid flight along lee slopes, but if you need to (because life's sometimes like that), smoothest flight will be obtained by flying as close as possible to the ground, say about six inches, so you’re in the boundary layer, which is a steady movement of air close to the surface, with a vertical element. This gives even less room for error, though. If the relative humidity is high, you could watch for rotor clouds, which will indicate wind currents and turbulence.

If bad visibility and rain are likely to be a problem, choose a more mountainous route even if the winds are a little stronger—Fohn effect will often provide a clear passage.

Winds are very important – they can increase your operational ceiling, payload, rate of climb, range and cruise speed, but they can also do the opposite, and be very difficult to predict, with formidable up and downdraughts associated with them. When cruising downwind, along a lee slope or not, sudden wind reversals could make you exceed VNE or even take away your airspeed completely.

There are several types of wind, which can loosely be grouped into prevailing or local, with the latter classification subdivided into other types, such as anabatic, katabatic, etc., and which are infinitely variable. The former is steady and fairly reliable, and starts to affect you from about 6000 feet upwards. Smoke from local fires may be used to detect wind direction, as can water, but this may only give half the story. For instance, it's not uncommon for the windsocks at each end of Banff airstrip in the Rockies to be 180 degrees at variance with each other! Indeed, upper winds can come in many directions at different levels, and are usually the opposite of lower winds. Where mountains are concerned, they also acquire a vertical element, which is actually where the boundary layer comes from.

As a guide to speed, whitecaps on water foam at 10 mph. Dark depressed puddles on water are called Bearpaws and are caused by downbursts. The most important thing to watch out for is the funnelling of wind as it progresses down a valley, so although the mean windspeed may be reported as 5 knots or so, you may find it as high as 30 in some places, and not necessarily coming from the expected direction.

In fact, understanding how air moves around terrain is one of the keys to good mountain flying, particularly the demarcation lines between smooth and turbulent air (in general, that moving up is smooth, and that moving down is turbulent. You can visualise the difference if you think of a waterfall, and the state of the water before and after dropping over the edge). Close to the ground, the air moves in laminar fashion, but the depth of the laminar section and the gust spread will vary considerably, depending on the nature of the surface and its heating. The laminar flow will become broken if the ground becomes rough, or there are trees, and the wind is strong. Turbulence will occur on both sides, resulting in an updraught close to the leeward side and a downdraught close to the windward side as the air is made to curl.

The movement of air over a crest line has a venturi effect, giving an increased windspeed over the summit and a corresponding reduction of pressure, which could cause your altimeter to over-read. On passing over or round an obstacle, the air may become turbulent or have formed into rolls which have a vertical or horizontal axis. Updraughts would be on the windward side and downdraughts to the leeward.
The general effect of a series of ridges is to form rolls between the crest lines, possibly causing a dangerous situation where a downdraught can exist on an upslope where an updraught would normally be expected.

(yet another piccie)

As a result, on top of steep ridges there may be an area of nil or reverse winds which is difficult to locate on the first recce. The vertical distance to which a mountain chain will influence the movement of air is about 3-5 times its height, changing with the windspeed.

Horizontally, the effect is variable and most noticeable in stable conditions with more than 20 knots of wind, when standing waves will form. As you probably know, you can recognise the existence of these by lenticular clouds, but you will also see ragged cloud around the peak. These should be avoided at all costs due to the turbulence associated with them, especially at the wind speeds that lead to their creation. In addition to shockloading, momentary loss of control may occur, not to mention coffee all over the place.

A couple of thoughts for when you’re very high up; how much time it takes to get down if you have a problem, and meeting anyone else at that height on an airway who doesn’t expect you. And oxygen.
Landing Sites
Those on peaks or crests usually present you with more escape routes than any on flanks or valley bottoms so, wherever possible, landings should be made on ground higher than the immediate surroundings, so you can vary the approach direction according to the wind and have a clear overshoot path.

Use the windward sides of a slope; leeward sides should only be used in operational necessity, because wind flowing down the slope can increase its apparent angle (you need more lateral cyclic to hold the helicopter in place, and you could run out when you reduce power to lower the downwind skid). Don't forget you will not have the full effects of a ground cushion, if at all. Where conditions allow, go as far to the windward edge as possible, to avoid suddenly finding yourself in dead or reversed airflow (as if on a leeslope) and make overshooting easier. The wind coming over the peak will have increased in speed, due to Venturi effects (remember them?), so a 15 knot wind can easily become double that, aside from your altimeter misreading.

Finding the wind direction can be interesting if the site is bare and gives you no information, and it doesn’t help that mountain flying tends to take place in high pressure conditions, that is, where the winds are light and variable. We are now talking about local winds, caused by convection, for instance, or katabatic effects, combined with the prevailing wind influenced by the ground, or even a mixture of them all. Even a cloud shadow can increase the speed of a downflowing wind from a cold surface. You could judge its effects on the machine itself, flying round the site with a constant speed and power setting, or a constant altitude. Look at your power settings, whether the air is turbulent, your groundspeed varies or whether you drift. How much pedal you use to keep the thing straight is a good help – a lot of right pedal means the wind is from the left, for example, and a fair amount of vibration means it is behind you, but it may be a good idea, if you can’t have it at the front, to get the wind off to the side that requires the use of the power pedal (the left one, in a 206), just in case tail rotor authority becomes a problem. A lot of aft cyclic would indicate a tailwind as well.

So, with constant power and airspeed (say 40-50 kts), when you rise, you will be on the windward side, and vice versa. On the other hand, you would use less power on the windward side if you kept a constant height. However, use turbulence as a guide only in lighter winds – any found in updraughts will be from mechanical effects, such as trees. Smoke grenades are often used if there’s nothing else.

Aside from picking a speed which will be slow enough to detect changes and yet give enough for a margin of safety (and cope with any turbulence), when testing for wind, you should also fly about 50-100 feet below the top of the peak you want to land on, to keep yourself away from the demarcation line and reduce the chances of getting the rotors in an updraught on the leeward side. Also, keep tight in to the side, to stay inside the boundary layer.

The demarcation line is the point at which smooth air is separated from turbulent air around a peak, rather similar to that over an aerofoil.

(piccie)

It can be horizontal as well as vertical. Above or to the side of the line, air is relatively smooth and upflowing – below, it is downflowing. It steepens as wind velocity increases (and the severity of the slope), as does the area of downflow, and moves toward the top of the hill.

Having decided on wind direction, keep an eye on the altimeter as you will lose the natural horizon. A figure-of-eight type inspection gives you the best chance of getting the most information about your landing site, making all turns away from rising ground (returning towards the site) to give you a good view all the time, so you don’t lose sight of it in the trees. You could go round in a circle, but the landing point would be out of sight most of the time.
Check for Size, Shape, Surroundings, Slope, Surface and Sun (you don’t want it in your eyes). Do a couple of passes at about 30-40 kts, including an overshoot and approach to land so you can identify a reference point on the landing site and confirm the wind direction by comparing ground speeds. At the end of each pass, climb at least 50 feet, to make sure you don’t go below the site level (as you gain more experience, you will be able to cut all this down considerably. Some pilots use one or two turns in a descending spiral). Keep any trim, or you will get confused, and check groundspeed through the side windows.

(piccie)

Turn in at around 50-60 knots, and, on finals, approach at a converging angle into wind (30 degrees or so). Take particular note of escape routes, up and down draughts and turbulent areas. Maintain a constant angle, aiming directly for the point you wish to land on, as you may not be able to hover when you get there, although this may not always be possible in a confined area needing a vertical descent, or if there’s garbage on the ground which makes you pick another spot. If you do manage to hover, make it low, somewhere between 1-2 feet, and brief, one or two seconds.

There are several schools of thought about approaches, but no real standard – as with many other activities involving helicopters, there is more than one “right” answer to this one. A fairly flat, disc-loaded (shallow) one will (in theory, anyway) minimise collective for the hover, and give you the most control as you keep translational lift as long as possible, but there’s very little up your sleeve at the end, and you need to be very aware of your winds, as forward speed will mask the effects right to the last minute, although it does give you a good idea of the level of your site. This assumes you remember your training and keep going forward and down, so the cyclic is ahead of the game and operating in the cleaner air in front of the machine that helps with translation. In other words, keep the rotor disc forward, so the flow of air is from front to back, especially where snow is concerned, but you shouldn’t use the shallow approach with powdered snow, because you will lose sight of your landing point at the critical moment in the resulting white cloud.

You could, on the other hand, use a steeper angle, say, 30 degrees, increasing with the wind strength, but this requires large handfuls of power and attitude changes in the final stages if you don’t get ground effect, so you wouldn’t try this in an underpowered piston-engined machine that really shouldn’t be there in the first place (the engine may be able to cope with it, but can your tail rotor?). Anyway, since ground effect reduces your torque requirement for the hover by up to 15%, if you approach in such a way that you need no more than that amount to stop, you should find your descent stopping nicely in the right place, assuming the surface is conducive to it, and depending on whether you have high skids or not. You also have some potential energy available for an escape.

I guess you could use whatever works—I generally turn in steep around 60 kts with the disc loaded as much as possible, consistent with descending at about 250 fpm – if the blades have some tension on them, they are less likely to be overstressed. Not only that, the controls are more responsive. The power used will give you a good idea of what you need in the hover, so you have an early chance to abort if you are using too much. This works, because you are using nearly the same air as at your landing point (it’s a steep approach, remember), and 250 fpm reduces the thrust required to transition into the hover by about 15%, i.e. much the same as for ground effect. Flare the disk without moving the fuselage if you can. 250 fpm is about 20 feet every 5 seconds, if you haven't got a VSI (altimeters usually have 20-foot segments).

In a confined area, there will be a point beyond which you're committed, so don't go beyond it until you’re sure. Pick a point to aim for where you know your tail will be clear, and try to come to a hover just before crossing the edge of the trees, or whatever, on the undershoot, which both confirms the power and allows you to throw it away if need be, bearing in mind the potential windshear as you go into the hole. The size of any surrounding trees will give you a false illusion as to the size of the clearing, in that big trees will make it look smaller and vice versa. A typical clearing will have stumps and slash all over the surface – if you don’t have logs to land on (and these produce their own problems when they are slippery), take off a cleanly as possible, to avoid your skids getting caught in something (also be aware that tall trees will sway from your downwash).

Anyway, always be prepared to break off at any time, even if only seconds from success. Never commit yourself till the very last moment. Short cuts don't exist with mountains—they've been around a lot longer than you have!

Landing sites on the bottoms of valleys often have difficult access, and frequently leave no escape route once an approach has started. In this case, it's important to have safe power reserves before committing yourself. In any case, placing the aircraft downwind near to ground should be avoided, but if you have to, go low and slow when approaching downwind with a last minute turn into wind.

In snow, try landing with the sun behind you, as the aircraft shadow will give you a useful guide to the ground slope and surface and provide a focus for a sight picture approach. Some people use the landing light. For takeoff, try not to hover too much. A jump takeoff is useful if little power is available, where you get light on the skids, proceed to the edge with full RPM and tip yourself over the edge. Good fun. In a confined area, for a JetRanger, at least, you need about 15% torque in hand to do a proper vertical takeoff, so you’re probably OK if you’re hovering at about 80%.
Log Pads and Platforms
Log pads are used when slopes are steep, on rough ground. The quick and easy one is a single log across the slope for your rear skid to a solid mat of smaller ones. They can be slippery! Platforms are still made from logs, but are much more refined. The problem with them all is, you can only land one way, and there may be no room to turn once you get there, so approaching with the wind in totally the wrong direction is often the only choice. In such cases, you need much more anticipation than normal, and the willingness to throw things away much earlier. Of course, you don’t actually have to land, but it’s often worth a try.

Here is a typical log arrangement (note the larger one at the back):


(photo)

[VLift]

I spent something over eight years flying in the Rocky Mountains. Lots of really good info and technique in the above.
Only two things I'll quickly add:

At some point on final when you can still turn away for an abort, in the effects of the same or at least not more advantageous winds as in the landing area, bring the speed to just below etl and descent to as close to zero as you can. Note the power & other determining systems. Re-establish the approach slope and use the noted conditions to support/not-support your previous determination that you have sufficient power for landing and takeoff.

Go sit next to a shalow stream or tide pool and watch the water flow around the rocks. Add what you know about temperature of air changing in rising and falling air, and you're learing a little about how air flows around and through terrain.
Remember, Bernoulli(sp) and Pitot were hydrodynamics wizzards. The commonalities of pressure, density of mass and, flow charicteristics between gas and fluid is why they've won a place in our hearts in aviation.

[paco]

Thank you, I'll do that, but they're home-brewed - you might not want to see them! I may well pump them up to the web site and include a link in the text, in between flights (somewhere East of Ft Nellie at the moment).

cheers

Phil

[John Eacott]

Robs.,

If you can open Wordperfect docs., I'll e mail you my ops manual supp. on Mountain Flying. We operate in the Australian Alps at around 6-9000 ft DA summer and winter, moving skiers and doing heaps of sling loads. May be some help.

[Robsibk]

Hi to All!

Hey Paco!
What a post!Thank's a lot for your post and time.I have learned a lot,lots of interesting things.
BTW are you from Spain?
To John Eacott!
Thank's for your offert I would love to get that ops manual.I have word 2000 so I think I will be able to open your doc.
Again thank you All for contributing in this post!
Roberto

[paco]

Im a Brit in Canada - dunno how I ended up with paco. I hope all that helped - are you planning to fly in mountains anytime soon? It is something that needs proper training, but not all courses are the same - research them thoroughly.

cheers

Phil

[Seat Stick Interface]

A very good piece of advice once passed onto me, was :

WATCH WHAT THE BIRDS DO.

If you want to fly, not just in the mountains, watch what birds do.

In strong winds they don't turn their tails to the wind, they ride it, weaving left and right and let the wind move them to where they want to be. For a helo the advantage of this are:

A positive airspeed.
Nose more or less into wind if something goes wrong.
A low groundspeed.
you shouldn't run out of room in your valley/bowl or whatever and have to overbank/pitch.

The final piece of advice.

Practice. Especially with someone who knows. Mountains cannot be taught by a book. Experience is the key.

Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. try to use someone elses experience before you develop your own. It can go very wrong very quickly and if you haven't planned ahead you are f***ed!

If you are teaching yourself from a book:

a. You are a f***ing mug.
b. don't try this at night.

[eden]

Hey - Muchos apologies for not posting the detail you asked for! I have not been in a position to do much work recently.

However,some of your other contributors to this topic have more than covered some of the detail that is essential knowledge.

I'm sorry for the lame excuse(not been too well recently) and will keep an eye on the topic in order to add the odd snippet - if need be. Best Regards

energy driven eccentric nirvana - eden

[Heliport]

Hope you get well soon.
Look forward to your contributions.

[mrfish]

Some sound advice here.....but note the major safety point. "Do not try this alone, you need to be taught it" (by someone reputable!)

Having flown throughout Nth Norway, UK, Austria, Bosnia, New Zealand Alps and the Antarctic I would like to add:

1. Escape Route: The requirement is obvious; you must maintain a suitable escape for as long as possible. You'll either need it for power probs or T/R authority. In you recce you must decide if either (or both) will be your nemesis. If possible keep your escape opposite to your power pedal (right in Bell, left in AS helos). If you need to run away, cyclic firmly in the escape direction to enhance 'weathercocking' tendancies....therby relieving T/R input and increasing the power available.

2. 3000ft or 15000ft, makes no difference in your technique.....DA is everything. (Landing on Mt Erebus at 12K & -15 was fine but as we established the hover we flew into a steam vent from the volcano....temp rose to +26 in 2-3 seconds!) Planning is important but you can't plan for everything.

3. Having flown with Brits, Kiwis and Canadiens, I can safely say that we all have something to learn from each other. No one has the perfect technique...experience is the only leveller (and you can't teach that).

Night.....oh yes you can....(on NVG) in the snow and with under-slung loads.........and yes it has its moments!

Crawl - Walk.....never Run....it scares the passengers.

[Cyclic Hotline]

This site contains some very interesting accounts and pictures of the rescue activities on Mt McKinley, Alaska by the "Denali Lama".

The highlight of many of the rescues is the use of the Screamer Suit, into which the individuals climb, before utilising the integral harness to attach themselves to the longline hook! They are then slung off the mountain - check out the British climbers picked off at 19,000 feet!

Jim Hood has been flying this contract for many years now, initially for Rocky Mountain, and currently for Evergreen. In addition to these rescues, he also had an engine shut down at 14,000 feet, when he landed to pick up an injured climber. The engine lit-off on the third attempt, not before Jim had realized that there was a very high likelihood that they were about to die on the mountain - lucky escape!

http://classic.mountainzone.com/climbing/denali/rescue/

[gokel]

I really find sometimes hard to exactly guess correct wind direction. Any solution to this?.

[Robsibk]

Hey Paco!

Where are you in Canada?Last April I traveled from Calgary to Edmonton,Prince george to Vancouver looking for a job .I hope I have more luck this year I'm planing to come to western Canada in April.Can you recomend some good schools to get a mountain course besides of Canadian in Penticton?
Thank's

To all thank's for your advicements!

Roberto

[Thomas coupling]

Gokel: wet your finger and stick it out of the window :) ......or,

Carry smokes and chuck those out!

------------------
Thermal runaway.

[Robsibk]

Hi Phil!(paco)

Wich company are you working in Calgary,last year I visited a couple of companies in Calgery (Trans Canada Pipelines,Eagle Copters,Turbowest Helicopters).
If you don't want to put the name on the Forum you can e-mail [email protected]
And thanK's for your advicements
Roberto

To Eden.

I hope you feel bether soon!We are waiting.
Haha!

[lama]

hi guys
very interesting postings...never too old to learn.....guys in Indian AAC(flying the Lama) land regularly at helipads varying from 10,000 to 23,000 ft....its all possible because of some old fashioned dual sorties.....and a solid gen of ground subjects and ur own FU's....lets keep this link going......lama's a wonderful machine ....the best the frenchies have offered to this world....alles gute

[army427]

Gokel - if you can't use smokes do a few low passes directly over the landing site from various directions. Do this at a low airspeed but stay above ETL. Look at your track and heading on each pass - this should help you assess the wind direction. You may also see some evidence on the surface such as grass being flattened in one direction or snow granules being blown across the surface.

Buena suerte amigo.

[This message has been edited by army427 (edited 04 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by army427 (edited 04 April 2001).]

[paco]

Hi Robsibk - it's Guardian helis, but we mainly operate out of Ft Nellie, which is probably why you missed us - the Calgary part is the HO, and will shortly move to Springbank

Phil

[offshoreigor]

GOKEL:

Try a few eye level passes combined with your contour crawl. This will establish whether you're in upflow (good air) or downflow (bad air). You should do these passes at 50-60 knots so you can pick up visually the apparent pace (groundspeed)for the into wind/out of wind conditions.

If one pass requires 80%Q and you appear to be going quick, then your in downflow/downwind air. If you only need 50%Q and you feel like you have a good walking pace, then you have upflow/into wind air.

As all others have stated previously, take a good mountain course like CHC Penticton. Jan Rustad may taaaaaaaalk slooooooooow but he knows his stuff.

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

PS Took the Penticton course in '87.

[Robsibk]

Hi Phil!

I hope I will get my visa soon.Do you think that I will be to late for job search if I arrive to Canada in the begining of mai?And do you know some companies that hire low time pilots ????

Thank's

Thank's to all for making that topic that intersting!!!
Roberto

[paco]

You're a bit late for banging on doors for the season in general, but we expect to be busier than usual this year anyway, and I'm sure it's the same for other companies. You will find that the companies themselves have no bias, but the customers do! For example, we have a job that specifies 1500 hours for a job that a 100-hour guy is totally overqualified for. The reason is either a) they would like some experience should an engine failure happen or b) they've been listening to a "consultant".

Having said that, there are some companies that don't care, so you may be lucky. As a guide, I get on average 2 calls a day from low time people, so the competition is keen. There is a shortage, but it's in the 1250-3000 hour band.

cheers

phil

[Robsibk]

Hi Phil!

Well I will see how it goes when I'arrive to Canada.At least I will fly a couple of hours to get used again.I hope it will not be to hard after beeing groundet for one year.

Roberto

[Heli-Ice]

Mountain flying is a thrill among itself, don't you think?
I've been reading a lot of articles in magazines like Rotor&Wing and Autorotation and some about mountain flying. What struck me when reading these articles was that the they were written in a manner that the common helicopter pilot, ( I reccon they were aimed at US pilots coz those ara US magazines.... but) isn't supposed to know anything about mountain flying??? So my questions to you experienced guys are:

What are your opinions on these articles and mountain flying?

Please tell us (the inexperienced) about your experience in this field(considerations, safety issues)?

I fly in Iceland and here we have some great mountains as many of you might have guessed an they sometimes seem to produce bad weather in almost every conditions.

Hope to hear many opinions.

Safe flying.

Edited for spelling, ( ARRRRR those special Icelandic letters)

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: Heli-Ice ] Same purpose
:D

[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: Heli-Ice ]

[Arm out the window]

You are probably mountain flying when some of these things (not an exhaustive list) become significant enough for you to start feeling a bit unsettled if you haven't done it before (or even if you have):

You're moving a lot faster over the ground for a given airspeed than usual (IAS vs. TAS, can catch you out during approaches and turning around in valleys particularly).

The horizon is hidden behind the big hills, so all your usual attitude cues aren't there any more.

You might be flying along beside a ridge and suddenly find you need a heap more power to avoid the ground than normal because you're caught in descending air.

A big invisible hand might reach out, grab the helicopter and shake it around like a toy, then go away (perhaps!).

Your engine acts like it won't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

You're a bit lost, poking around in a valley, fly round a corner and find it's full of cloud. Then you haven't got room to turn around, and you also find that you've been creeping up in altitude and can't hover OGE any more - and the valley floor is covered in trees. Uh oh!

You think 'I'll just duck over that lower part of the ridge line there', fly at it, and find your airspeed is bleeding off because it's a 12000 ft pass, and you've got about 10 degrees nose up to make the picture look right.

You're in a pad with 5 ft on the radalt and 10000 on the pressure altimeter, and little blokes with bows and arrows come out from behind the bushes!

Well enough rambling for the moment...

[Geronimo 33]

I am sure it is written in American...surely it isn't in English....for there aren't any mountains in Britain! Foothills maybe...knolls...knobs....yea even a bluff...but mountains.....nah! So why would the article be slanted towards the English...afterall it is in fact an American magazine....Rotor and Wing. We on the far side of the pond try to make things meet the reality test when dealing with aviation and not see how complex and esoteric we can make it. Ever done a plotting exam for a CAA ATPL? Apply that to your everyday tasking as a pilot. :p

[Thomas coupling]

HELI ICE: use the search facility on this forum, there is a mountain of information available under "mountain flying" :D

Geronimo: I've done both, Trained in the Rockies and work in the lumps and bumps of the UK. It's the same as far as 'local weather' is concerned, you can't experience the whole mountain range at one go.
The principles are the same with both techniques and weather phenomena. Big isn't always better ;) Both can bite.

[I'm assuming aircraft performance isn't an issue. ]

[Heli-Ice]

Hahahaha.... Yeah those blokes with the bow and arrows, good thing we don't have them here on the Ice.
I think maybe that we are lucky here on the Ice because the highest mountain here is around 7000´ high. Despite that fact one has to take into account the power available to you when working in and around those mountains. The weather here can get a bit hostile and conditions can change at the blink of an eye.

Geronimo 33:
Yes I've done the Icelandic CAA ATPL plotting Exam, I don't know if its any different from the one you are talking about.
We use that plotting practice when going IFR, for VFR we use the chart and the string with the small helicopter at the end of it. Iceland is such a small island and we have a very relaxed flying environment. Not so many navigation facilities for lower airspace flying.
Most of the helicopter flying here is done under VMC as in many other countries.
What kind of operation are you involved in Geronimo33?

The reason for this posting is that I have never flown anywhere else than in Iceland and I wanted to get some information from as many of you on this forum.

[Nick Lappos]

I've flown around a few mountains, some of the tropical kind, and some of the Colorado kind. I think the biggest problem with mountains is that they are high and they are hard.

The height robs power and sticks up into clouds, making cumulous granite clouds the second most dangerous cloud formation (cumulous electric takes my first place).

Mountains are hard, at least as compared to cloudy or dark air, so the helicopter comes to a very rapid stop when flying along and suddenly encountering a mountain-filled cloud.

Mountains are beautiful, with the spectacular ability to cause that gut-wrenching thrill when you fly past a peak and the world falls away at super-sonic speed. When I first soloed, I flew off a cliff face near Breckenridge, Texas at least 30 times just to get that cheap thrill.

Near Leadville Colorado, the peaks are beautiful, and the valleys are filled with yellow-leaved Aspens that look like 10 mile long flower shops. The air is thin, and so is the power margin on most helos, so you rapidly gain respect for airspeed and escape options.

In the Arabian countries, the mountains are red, and the sunsets can bring tears of beauty to your eyes. The valley near the Rum, Jordan's highest mountain, is like Monument Valley in the western flicks, with towering rock pillars jutting 1000 meters above the sandy valley floor where Lawrence lead his troops against the Ottomans. Shut down on the top of the Rum, watch the sun set in measured pace, watch the stars slowly unveil themselves, and you could decide that little else is needed to fill your life, unless you think about battery failure, and how the hell you can get help a mile up a sheer rock-faced cliff.

I think mountains are the place to feel the real thrill of flying. Flatlands are safer, more predictable, and more boring. Gain 1000 feet, and all that flatland stuff looks painted on the canvas. Mountains add punctuation to our flying, I think. :)

[Geronimo 33]

Nick,

You ever have to navigate by the bottoms of the mountains while the tops were obscured by cloud...say ceiling about 2-300 feet...but gin clear underneath? Did that one time flying from a field site 200 miles east of Bandar Abbas on the way to a drill rig in the middle of the desert inland from Lavan Island in Iran. What a novel trip...on Christmas Day as well! The terrain relief was very stark due to the rocky barren ground....made it easy to see the shapes of the peaks....the trick was to ignore the upper contours on the map and look at the lowest contour lines.

Turbulence could be fun there too....flying the Alouette III in real turbulence you could have temporary hydraulic failures due to cavitation of the pump while all the fluid hung out at the top of the tank....we are talking about industrial strength ups and downs!

Some of the prettiest photographs I have are of late evening flights in the desert there...with the stark mountains and interesting colors....same as the Cedar City-Bryce Canyon area of Utah....and down through Moab and Cortez area. For a real thrill ....fly off the North Rim of the Grand Canyon in really hazy weather from an altitude of 50-100 feet....really charges the batteries!

[Nick Lappos]

G33,
That overcast scenario with the ridge tops in cloud is wonderful, I agree. The clouds cut the light to a soft glow, and the shadows disappear so things look almost like a model of the world.

It is cool, unless there is a 50 cal team on the ridges at the military crest, shooting down like we are fish in a barrel (25 miles west of Tra Bong, as I recall). You can pull the seat cushion up into a small dough ball from the adrenelin.

[Devil 49]

First, didn't see the articles...

The "mountains" (3-5000 ft) around northern GA, USA., mostly seem to generate clouds. That's why they're called the Smokies. I'm coming to the opinion that relative humidity is my best predictor of success when I'm deciding go/no go. Must be loads of fun in Iceland...

[Heli-Ice]

Yes it can be loads of fun here on the Ice. We do a lot of aerial photography in the mountains also deliver spare parts and other useful stuff to people who constantly feel the insane urge to drive or walk around the glaciers and rugged terain. We also do sigthseeing.

Landing on top of a glacier is great fun but those darn things seem to have their own weather system.

I heard a story from one pilot who was doing aerial photography around the biggest glacier here in what seemed to be a very good weather, only 5-10 kts all around the country but 40-50 kts around the ice cap. A big hand reached out from nowhere and slammed him around. Everything turned out fine with him and he returned to safety but it is a bit scary when you get caught in a situation like that.

Thomas coupling: Thanks for the info.

[407 Driver]

I've spent the last 20+ years in the BC Rockies. What terrifies me is any trips out east onto that godforsaken flat land you guys call "Praries".. Luckily, that happens very rarely.
There have been a lot of good points brought up in this thread, local knowlege of weather patterns help, as does strong knowlege of your aircraft and it's performance charts. Some good training on some proven mountain flight proceedures, some common sense and a bit of luck and you're all set.

I have operated a 206B up to 12,000, with the proper Wx, loads and attitude, it can be done if conditions are correct.
Life is so much easier now since the 407 entered the picture.

Have fun out there on the flatlands and over the oceans boys, it's not for me. :D

[Autorotate]

Heli Ice

What sort of helos are you flying up there and what is the variety of work you do.

[Off road]

Thanks Folks for the input,interesting post.
Don't have much experience in mountain flying living in the low countries.

If you don't ask....you'll never know..... ;)

[Flying Lawyer]

The following website might be of interest. Click Mountain Flying.com (http://www.mountainflying.com)

I've yet to do any real mountain flying in helicopters, but a few C172 hours out of Aspen Colorado provided an interesting lesson in greatly reduced performance at high altitude!

[What-ho Squiffy!]

I am interested in hearing from the guru's on techniques for flying on the lee side of hills/mountains in a stiff wind - i.e. the area of turbulence, standing waves and rotor action. Or perhaps more correctly, avoiding standing waves and rotor action, while flying in the lee of a mountain.

I have read through the mountain flying threads, where there were brief discussions concentrating on lee turbulence, but I would love to hear experiences etc of others in this area. I have done a bit of flying among serious mountains in the tropics, but none in the alpine areas where it can get quite blowy. When in Europe last, I wanted to take a tourist helo ride, but they canned it when the wind got above 30kts (from memory), so I missed out on the experience as a passenger too.

If I have missed such a previous discussion - mea culpa, and could you please point me in that direction?

[paco]

There's not much you can do to avoid them in the lee, but I have found that the smoothest area, if you get stuck (because it's inconvenient to keep changing valley sides sometimes) is to ride the backlash formed by the wind curling back toward the peak after it has gone over the top. However, you need to be *very* close in (like about 6 inches!) and is dangerous for that reason. 25-30 kts is my level for canning trips.

If you can see down the upslope, then you will be above the demarcation line.

Phil

[ax57]

Yep, what Paco said. I've found that you can get the best results by seeking the "dead air" underneath the swirling cauldron, but it puts you close to the rocks. You have to leave yourself an "out" and be prepared to break down and away from the mountains. Never approach a ridge from 90 degrees, approach from about 45 degrees instead so that your don't have so far to turn to get out of Dodge if you need to.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Paco, that sounds exciting! You mean you are just on the downwind side of the ridge, below the demarcation line?

[Kota]

Why not try New Zealand as an option as well.Not much further to go than Australia.The current exhange rates makes NZ very attractive.Not only do some of the best pilots in the world come out of NZ but the type of flying as far as mountain training and long line training is second to none.
Look up helipro.co.nz ,quite a big company with a good diverse range of gear.
Good luck where every you choose.

[Heliport]

I've been asked to recommend a Mountain Flying course.

My chum lives in the UK, but is prepared to travel for a good course.
Looking at the photographs posted in our Rotorheads Around the World collection, I think I'd be heading off to a school in Canada if I was him.

Any recommendations?

Heliport

[RDRickster]

The main high altitude flying course in the U.S. is Guidance Helicopters out of Arizona...

http://www.guidancehelicopters.com/index2.html

They are a Part 141 training center, which many folks feel is better than the standard Part 61 training center. I met the owner and two of their CFI's when I was at the RHC Safety Course, and they seem to be a good lot.

I don't have any specific information about the school; nevertheless, they seem to have an excellent success rate. Also, they are opening up a second location in Montana shortly.

[FlyAnotherDay]

Heliport

After asking advice here in Rotorheads, I had six days of mountain training in New Zealand at Simon Spencer-Bower's outfit, Wanaka Helicopters, which I thoroughly enjoyed, couldn't fault and would recommend unhesitatingly. I have a PPL(H) but think that it would be equally good for a CPL/ATPL holder.

FlyAnotherDay

[Heliport]

Pleased the recommendations given on the forum were useful - all part of the world famous Rotorheads service. :)

Sounds as though it was a very useful course.
Tell us more about it when you have time.


Heliport

[FlyAnotherDay]

Heliport, thanks for the invitation.

As mentioned before, I did some mountain training in New Zealand. I have a UK PPL(H). My flying in NZ was all in R22s and started off more as do-a-bit-of-mountain-flying and ended up with more than I'd anticipated.

Given the usual caveats (the mistakes are all mine and don't try this at home without adult supervision), here's a list-ish sort of summary:

After some briefing, I spent a while flying up and down valleys: Choosing which part of the valley to fly in, to gain lift from funneled wind, to provide space to turn when necessary and to maintain a margin of safety for engine failure, typically 2/3rds up the windward face of the valley. And learning to fly without a reliable horizon, particularly flying up or down a valley: As the valley floor drops away, there's a tendency to accelerate and as the floor rises, there's a tendency to slow, so being aware of these and watching the ASI helps maintain the chosen AS.

In landings, the three most important factors are the S's, the W's and Power:

S's - the Sun, preferably not in your eyes. The Skids - will they fit? And the other five S's I remember from UK confined area operations - Size, Shape, Surrounds, Surface and Slope.

W's - Wind direction, Wires, Way in, Way out, escape Woute:) and Wubbish

Power: In the UK I'd been taught a straight & level power check to determine Manifold Pressure requirement for landing and a comparison with the placarded max allowed.

Instead, to determine the power requirement: Check the 2’ HIGE MP indicated at T/O. The same indicated MP will be required for HIGE at whatever altitude, higher or lower, although this will correspond to a lower power at lower altitude or higher power at higher altitude, as density varies. However, if you’ve burned a load of fuel, less power and so a lower MP may be needed and so a 53kt S+L power check may be sensible .

Power available may not be as placarded - in flight, pull collective until E+R just start to droop (but are still in the green) and note MP. This is MP available. Remember, the power that a given MP equates to varies with density.

Power available determines whether landing is possible - and how: 53kt S+L +3" for a running landing, +4" for a 0/0, +5" for towering and for the 2' HIGE - as in T/O power check, +6" for HOGE vertical, +7" for vertical.

Fly the landing site recce tightly at 60kts, with the site on your side, kept in view and crane round to keep it in sight. When choosing an approach, a conventional circuit, with a normal downwind leg may not be best to a pinnacle or a ridge. Consider flying up the downwind slope, downwind-ish, being carried up by lifting air and turning into wind for the landing site. Avoid the lee side of the slope, if possible, as this has down currents.

A steep approach from the lee side of the landing site avoids more of the falling air than a shallow approach.

Make sure that there's a way out to go around if necessary, which should need no more than a gentle peel-off.

Once landed, pump the cyclic up and down to settle the skids into snow. And don’t park on the downhill bit - try to keep the engine over the highpoint of a knoll to avoid the aircraft going skiing – with or without you!

On completing a go-around for an aborted approach, ensure you have positive VSI before turning downwind, to avoid the combination of a falling aircraft and rising ground…

When you're trying to work out the wind direction from grass tussocks, typically on the recce, look at a tussock for a moment or two and if it doesn't give you the answer, look at another instead. It seems obvious to me now, but wasn't until I was told!

When departing, don’t leave the security of your spot until E+R are at the top of the green (not drooping) and you have a significant, satisfactory rate of climb. Then accelerate forward – into wind – for a max rate of climb and get a good A/S before turning. Beware of overpitching - pulling more collective than there is power: The E+R will droop before the Low RPM horn (or GPW horn;)) sounds.

The sloping ground in the mountains is not only deceptive for AS, as I discovered approaching an ag strip in a sloping valley. Despite thinking I had a good approach angle, I found I had been well below the site elevation, having been deceived by the inclined strip.

Cross ridges at an angle, to allow a way out with a gentle turn if necessary.

In turbulence - reduce speed and power immediately.

One interesting sloping ground difference from my UK training was landing only the skid tips for very sloping ground passenger dis/embarcation.

Mountains, certainly in the South Island of NZ, but probably everywhere, are far more attractive places to fly in than the flatlands of East Anglia, not just for the flying, but for the scenery, which I can't do justice to. The weather seemed more reliable than UK weather too, particularly considering it was winter.

Watching the Robinson Safety Video, I finally grasped mast bumping, which was an improvement on my previous rather tenuous hold. I haven't seen the video in the UK, nor had my UK instructors.

The greatest difference between the UK & NZ PPL(H) syllabi is the compulsory mountain training in NZ. Another is slingloading, a Kiwi PPL option, which isn't permitted on a UK PPL. By the time I'd flown on five consecutive days, I'd covered the mountain training component of the PPL(H) and after a little revision, some low flying (from which I guess that nap-of-the-earth flying may be the most fun to be had with trousers on), another exam paper, a Biannual Flight Review (the Kiwi equivalent of the Licence Proficiency Check) and a remarkably small a mount of money, I found myself with a Kiwi PPL.

Did I like it all? Enough to have just found my way back to NZ.:D

FAD

[[email protected]]

Flyanothertday, if you want to fly safe in the mountains then make sure you have an artificial horizon or attitude indicator and constantly refer to your flight instruments. Just relying on the ASI is insufficent - attitude determines your airspeed so that is what you should rely on. It is very strange referring to instruments when you are flying up a valley or into a bowl but if you want to avoid climbing as you enter and descending as you exit then it is what you must do.
A top technique is to set straight and lever power for the speed you want to fly at (typically 40 - 60 kts) and pick a feature on the ground (rock, tussock etc but don't use sheep!) that is approximately in the place in the windscreen that the horizon would be (about a third of the way up above the coaming on Lynx/Sea King). Then fly at the feature keeping it in the same place in the windscreen and check the VSI - if you are climbing then pick another rock further down - if you are descending then pick one higher.
Once practised at this technique you will be able to fly in to valleys and bowls without climbing and make a level turn at the end which significantly aids the subsequent approach to the LS.
As far as advanced mountain techniques go eg in stronger winds then make your approaches using the updraughting side of the featurein a curving flightpath so you never get on the downwind side of the ridge/pinnacle etc - your escape route is therefore always into wind and into updraughting air.

[chopperchav]

Would love to do a mountain flying course in the Alps(Swiss look quite nice). Anyone know a company which runs courses?

[tecpilot]

You can go to nearly any company but not to REGA or other officialrescue operators. Take the course on a ship you have current. You can have all common single and twin types. But be prepared to really expensive hours!

[jellycopter]

Chopperchav,

Are you in the HCGB? If so, take a peak at the most recent issue of RotorTalk re mountain flying. You can get valuable experience through the Club and very close to home.

J

[Heliport]

Threads merged.

Separate thread: Technique and experience for mountain rescue (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51051)

[inthegreen]

Just throwing a topic out to the group for discussion. Every pilot flies a little bit differently, with respect to their training, their experience, the diversity of their missions and the amount of exposure they've had to more experienced pilots.

I'm interested in what procedures other pilots use when conducting mountain approaches. I have my own procedures, which are not unusual or unique in any way, but there are many ways to accomplish the same feat. If you feel like responding, give your procedure/s as well as your reasons for doing it that way.

Thanks

[paco]

Many schools teach the Okanagan-type shallow approach, which was used by someone many moons ago and never been questioned since.

It should (in theory, anyway) minimise collective movement for the hover, since your power is already applied, but there's very little margin up your sleeve at the end, and you need to be very aware of your winds, although it does give you a good idea of the level of your site. You are also trying to land at probably the only spot available for miles around, and if you have a problem in a shallow approach, you aren't going to get there.

I generally turn in steep around 60 kts with the disc loaded as much as possible, consistent with descending at about 250 fpm (landing site just forward of the nose). If the blades have some tension on them, they are less likely to be overstressed, and the controls are more responsive. Coming in steeper also means you use less collective and allows you some momentum from gravity if you need to peel away in a hurry, giving you half a a chance of making the site. Certainly more than with a shallow approach.

Also, don't approach straight in to a site, that is with a large lump of mountain directly in front of you - 45 degrees is best so you can peel away. Mountain pilots always have a way out, even after they've lamded!

Phil

[Arm out the window]

Same as paco, I like a steepish approach, but slow with power on so there isn't a big embarrassing suck at the end.
Also keeps you up out of the possible turbulent downdrafts on the lee of the hill.

Approaching along a ridge is a good idea rather than over the valley between two ridges, because if you have to turn away you can just 'fall' off the side of the high ground - obviously a good escape route is a must.

I was also taught, and like to use, a 'gunsight' technique - ie from the start point of your final approach, sight over the crest (if possible) and pick a point on the far valley floor that you can line it up on, like a gunsight. If you keep the two points superimposed, you will be flying down a constant angle.

Lack of horizon can be a problem, so you kind of have to work backwards and check your airspeed vs. ROD. vs. power (and cross check on the AI if you've got one) to ensure you're not getting sucked into some weirdly steep or shallow approach by the optical illusions possible with hills around.

That's a few that I use, anyhow.

[rotorboy]

Steep! Aye Carumba....
Shallow, Shallow, Shallow, power in way early, minimize collective movment, always have an out.

I like a low recon, feel the winds, pick my route, often downridege, down slope ( though nothing wrong with upslope if done correctly - ALWAYS have an out and power available.

Steep may work up to <5'-6'K but is a shure way to get killed in a hurry above 6-7k. Strong, GUSTY mtn winds (20+) make holding a steep angle often unsafe and too risky

Always cross ridges at a 45 angle.
Dont be afraid to say no.

Above 10K I often go super light first time in (espically in the summer). Ridge winds are often super light and viarble. IMO those are the most dangerous.

Other good rule I go by if I cant get into a spot after two try's, I look for a new one.

There are times in the B2 astar I am one at a time to 13+.... I have seen too many DA deaths due to heavy a/c and steep aproaches.. up high here in the SW rockies , you can stall a rotorsystem in a hurry. It gets too hot and too high.
My attitude has always been saftey and being conservative from the get go. after you get a feel, you can push a littlle harder. If you do like it, call my boss ( he'll back me up)...

ok off my soap box back to my beer
rb:ok:

[[email protected]]

I think the only reason for doing a steep approach is to keep above the demarcation line (where the laminar flow over the mountain feature turns turbulent) but I would always go for a shallow or even level, curving if required, approach staying in the updraughting air. You use less power and have a safe escape route if you don't like it. Oh and do a power check at altitude before you commit to the site just in case the engine(s) don't produce what they should.

[oldbeefer]

For a strong wind day, the French (working in the Alps up to 12000ft) would generally fly a climbing approach obliquely up the upwind side of the hill (having done a recce first from a safe ht above the LS) and then almost spot turn into wind as they came over the LS. This was in an underpowered Alouette II, and it worked a treat! Meant an option to fly back into the valley, on the updraughting side, was almost always available if turbulence or power became a problem.

[NickLappos]

Shallow! Absolutely! Make the approach slow, shallow and with no big power pulls at the bottom. Test max power before you start the approach, and note the torque MP that you have. As you decelerate on the approach, you will naturally bring the power in, so watch the power carefully, and if you get close to limits just nose down a bit and fly away (it is easier to fly away from a shallow approach than a steep one, PACO!) NEVER commit to the hover if therer is insufficient power.

The worst problem in an altitude landing is arresting the descent with the last bit of power at the bottom. If you are steep, you have a higher rate of descent and a bigger need to suck in power at the end - both factors help you fall through and hit hard if you misjudge (in fact, you will then call it Vortex Ring State, so that you are not at fault, Nature was!)

The only time to be steep is if you need to be for some other reason on the approach, such as obstructions.
Land crosswise to the wind, never from the downwind side. Often 45 degrees to the ridgeline works well.

[paco]

Sorry, not shallow for me, although it is a tool in the armoury for those once in a lifetime occasions. Collective higher, further to dump it.......

Not only that, you should be flying into the site, not hovertaxying :)

250 fpm in a jetbox uses about the same power as that required to hover (assuming ground effect is available) so there's minimal collective movement anyway.

phil

[NickLappos]

250 fpm at 50 knots is 3 degrees of descent, at 25 knots its 6 degrees, both on the shallow end of approach steepness......

[170']

En-route, try to find the overlying wind, then imagine the wind as water flowing over the mountain from that direction, try to imagine what’s actually happening

Fly recon and check wires, pylons, road or tracks…etc… if it’s wide open, I go straight into a low pass in the direction I think will be downwind…Pass level with the LZ at eye level, 50KIAS (stabilized) …

Check torque and altimeter at level of LZ (remember both), general feel, (a/c feels buoyant, stable, or feels skittish, if you guessed right on the downwind, you should be skittish, heading, airspeed etc)…glance sideways and get the sense of groundspeed

If you keep in tight with the hill, and maintain a light pressure on the pedals.
Any down-flow will cause the machine to want to weathercock into the hill.
Up-flow will cause you to weathercock away from the hill. …

Once passed the LZ, having checked the 5 S’ and no further info available.

Go for 60 KIAS and climb 50’ …once level at 50’ above LZ.. Give yourself whatever you want as a final approach distance, then turning away from the hill, make a 180 and set up on final with an option for a go-around….

As you turn away from the hill, don’t get higher than 50’ above LZ elevation. Continue inbound to the LZ maintaining a drop-off down slope in case you get any problems.

At no point in this type of approach will you climb more than 50’ above LZ elevation. When inbound, stay in tight following side hill, not flying into the hill...


Once you get inbound, reduce speed to the same speed you passed the LZ on your initial pass (on LZ elevation) at this same speed (stabilized) check torque…if you have less torque for same stabilized airspeed you’re in up-flow/upwind and right where you want to be. Think up-flow, down-flow. As well as upwind/downwind

As you get on short final, check visual groundspeed again out the side window, check torque…you should have less torque, feel buoyant, GS will be less. You have a loaded disk as you didn’t need much of a descent…fly it onto the LZ. …Make sure you don’t stop short, but fly it to the LZ…most of the power is already in and not much more to do…

Keeping in mind I don’t want a TR strike, I try to keep the machine kicked out a little, pointing along or down slope, in case it all gets funky in the last little bit…Any problem and I peel off down slope going for airspeed…

Not my procedure, learned it a long time ago in a Mtn flying course…

I don’t claim it’s the best or quickest, but if you’re on the limits with weight and power, it’s a really good way to put the odds on your side…

I don’t think much about it anymore, second nature now, but it’s worked in some real high elevation regions, and I’ve never once had to use my superior flying skill :E

170

ps, this is the procedure I use in real mountains, low hills is a different deal

[paco]

I don't do 60 knots all the way down - I think I said I start there. By the time I get to the spot it's all very gentle.......


Phil

[Arm out the window]

Yep, same here. Slow, steady, with power early.

[remote hook]

Paco, Arm out the Window,

I'm not sure where your moutain experience is, but flying like you describe is a sure way to end up in a ball of twisted aluminum. As Rotorboy a Crab say, a shallow approach to a specific spot, AFTER very acurately determining the horizontal and vertical components of the wind is the way to go.

Your theory of the steep approch and your so-called "way out" is hogwash at high altitudes and in loaded machines, particularly N1 limited ones like the Astar. The shallow approach in known wind allows for an overshoot to be made up until the last few feet in most cases, while affording a detailed view of the chosen landing area and providing the pilot with ample "feedback" from the machine to make the landing decision.

This is a method that works EVERY TIME, not 98%. Playing with the demarcation line on a steep approach is nice in light wind, but in heavy wind, steep terrain, and in a loaded machine, you're asking for it. These are not oil rig approaches in twins....

RH

[Arm out the window]

rh, what do you mean, the 'way out' idea is hogwash?
If I'm approaching along a ridge line and there is descending terrain each side, there's good 'ways out' all the way in.
To answer your question about experience, I've done some mountain flying in crap conditions, but not a lot - probably nowhere near as much as you guys do in Canada.
Shallow sounds good if you're in the updraft air, but a horse's arse if you're on the lee side of the ridge - I guess your response there would be that you wouldn't approach from that side.

[SAR Bloke]

I like the shallow approach too.

Arm out the window, why is a shallow approach 'a horses arse' idea on the lee side of a mountain? What makes the steep approach better in this situation?

[Gas Producer]

SAR Bloke,

The turbulence might have something to do with it.

[SAR Bloke]

So how would a steep approach help in turbulence?

What if the cloudbase was 50' above the landing site?

[Arm out the window]

If a strong wind blows over a ridge line or hill top, obviously the flow will be complex and hard to pin down in some cases, but according to the met people there's a so-called 'demarcation line' above which the air is smooth-ish and rising (starting at the top of the hill and sloping back with height in the direction the wind's blowing), and below which it's turbulent, unpredictable and generally downdrafting.
So, all other things being equal, if you approached in the more favourable area (above the 'line') it should keep you in cleaner and upward-moving air.
Obviously the real world isn't so easy to pigeon-hole, but as a guideline it makes at least a bit of sense to me, hence the idea of a steepish, SLOW approach.
If there's cloud 50' above, then of course the plan must change.

[CYHeli]

Another reason for flying slow (not hover taxi) is that if you get caught in turbulance, if aren't going to hit VNE. Remember VNE changes in turbulance, I'm not talking 120 - 156Kts normal VNE, I'm talking whatever the turbulance limit is for that machine. That will change with DA, AUW...

If you come in too quick, the winds is a bitch and you decide to point the nose down the hill and get out, you don't want to be going too quick.

Another thing is that you need time to assess what is happening.

[jemax]

I was asking my mountain flying instructor about wind and he told me he never had a problem with it,

"If it's more than 10 kts we dont fly, no problem"

Sensible advice especially for the inexperienced, for info he was the best pilot I have ever flown with at for doing zero/zero's as it's all he ever did up there.

[paco]

I've been using steepish approaches for the past several years in Alberta and BC and I'm still alive. I've always questioned the shallow approach, and I'm not saying I won't ever use one (cloudbase is one good reason as SAR Bloke suggests), but I will always try steep first. And you certainly shouldn't go shallow with powdered snow...

And if it's too high and too windy, you shouldn't be there. Period. Time to get a better machine.

That said,

[remote hook]

Powdered Snow??

The shallow approch to a slight run-on landing in ski ops IS THE WAY. To come to a high hover, or slow decent with no forward speed for that matter, on an overcast day with fresh snow is really asking for it... There are two stakes for a reason, aim for the first, end up at the second, using the paralax for reference.

Having your machine creating a snowball at 15ft with your landing spot below you is not my cup of tea, but if it makes you happy, have at it.

RH

[bell hater]

"If it's more than 10 kts we dont fly, no problem"

How do you ever get anything done? Wind is your friend at altitude…. (Or worst enemy) Depending if it’s a smooth laminar flow or a turbulent gusty day

[Overt Auk]

Now no way am I an expert in this field (most of my mountain flying has been done without benefit of engine, which does at least teach you about wind appreciation) but:

I am worried by Arm Out the Window's reasoning. If, as he says there is a 'demarkation line' somewhere above the ridge where all is fine and easy, the first time that he is going to find out about conditions at the LZ is with 100' to go on a steep approach. Next time someone is showing me how to do it I hope they follow 170's pattern

OA

[Gomer Pylot]

I'm wondering if everybody is on the same page concerning the definition of steep and shallow. What is normal, perhaps a little shallow for me is steep to some I've flown with. Could we perhaps define our terms, with respect to the approach angle in degrees? I don't do mountain flying, but for offshore rig approaches, at or near max gross weight, high density altitude, what works for me is putting the pitot tube (in an S76) on the far edge of the deck, getting about 250 fpm descent, and holding that angle throughout the approach. This results in very little pitch increase at the bottom, and little or no flare, and doesn't cause the very high torque requirements I see with very shallow approaches (almost flat in many cases). I'm not sure what the actual approach angle is for this, but many pilots I've flown with do consider it steep, although I don't think it is.

[Arm out the window]

Re the 'demarcation line' - my understanding, simplistic as it may be considering the real world doesn't act like a textbook, is that the flow of air over a ridge or hilltop can act something like airflow over a wing; ie conforms to the curve for a while, and somewhere behind the point of maximum curvature, may unstick and become turbulent.
So, Overt Auk, if you crept up to the hilltop shallow or level from the downwind side, you would be in the turbulence and downdrafting. If you came in at an angle on the steepish side of normal going to a pad at the top of the hill, you should be out of it - if this concept is appropriate for the conditions on the day, of course. Or you could approach across wind if the terrain allowed, in which case shallow might well be fine too.
Naturally everyone can think and do what they want; it's just one way of looking at it that I think is reasonable under some circumstances.

[paco]

A very good point, Gomer. I use that approach for offshore and mountains for the very reasons you describe. It works for me, and dire prognostications of ending up in a ball of aluminium won't stop me.

Steep to me is where you don't have enough forward speed to fly away, rather than an angle as such. Shallow, as demonstrated to me by one guy in Penticton, is an almost horizontal approach at the top of the max continuous power range (when heavy), with nothing up the sleeve if you need it at the end and your collective already high if you get a problem, and not there to help you slow down, which is one mountain technique. The approach that 170' describes is called the eye-level approach there, and is what should be used to get set up, but having done all that, I still wait for my normal sight picture.

I feel that you have to maximise your chances of getting into your site in a hostile environment, with or without an engine, and using a shallow approach ain't part of it.

For those of you who are curious, I did the basics in the British Army, then flew in Scotland for four years, learning from a guy who had flown in Nepal for fifteen years. Looks like he was a bit if a rebel :). They may be small, but Scottish "hills" will still kill you. They flipped Ken Kendal upside down in his 206.

The British Army teach the steep approach (or at least they did then) - the stronger the wind, the steeper you got. The Canadians teach the shallow one, but they got that from Okanagan. Go figure.

This is a demarcation line:

http://www.electrocution.com/demarc.jpg

Phil

[JHR]

I start at a normal (8-10 degree) approach. If the wind is strong I shallow the approach, it seems to me the steep approach with strong wind causes you to desend with almost flat pitch. I don't like to pull collective/flare to stop at the bottom of the approach. I like to be powered up and slow for the last 1/4 mile to allow the approach to terminate in a stable hover with no big power application or flare to stop the forward movment.

[SAR Bloke]

Steep to me is where you don't have enough forward speed to fly away,

You can fly a climbing approach and still have enough power to fly away providing the power margin is good enough (good forward speed or updraughting air). Obviously the speed will have to decrease at some point but not until you are assured of making the LS.

I don't know about Army training but the RAF also teach the steep approach on the basic mountain sortie. There are times when this is appropriate. After the 'basic' sortie student are then taught advanced mountains which involves staying on the updraughting side wherever possible (you then don't need to worry about the nast demarcation line) and flying level (and climbing approaches).


One of the problems a discussion like this (rather like the steep/shallow comment) is that everyone has their own picture of a typical mountain approach but in reality they are all different. Are we talking pinnacle, ridge, valley , bowl, etc? What wind strength are we assuming? How much spare 'power' does your machine have? What is the weather? All these variables need to be taken into account. There is no one answer.

[170']

Is that the big one, from the Kala Pattar side Phil?

[170']

If you go thru a serious Mtn flying school, they have a specific type of SAFER approach for just about everything you’ll run into…

Paco’s photo is a clear indicator of a demarcation line. But with clear evidence such as this, there are still a lot of people who would stumble around trying to decide how to get in. Until they either abandon the job or feel they have to commit to the last thing they thought of, because everyone’s watching or getting pissed off with the delay….

It’s all well and good to say…Wait until another day? But what if every day’s the same

An interesting diversion is to ask yourself, if you could or would try get in, under the conditions imposed in Paco’s photo…

Try to imagine what the wind strength is, and is it all bad, all good, or (Yawn) just another day in the hills…

Imagine your task is to put out a crew to install a repeater site? At some point your going to need to sling some steel or aluminum, bagged concrete mix, water etc..

Forget that it’s at 29,000’ (I think?)

Imagine it’s 7000’

I’ll post my opinion in a few day’s if anyone responds!

This is NOT a challenge, Just a way we can all consider options, be it one or 100

170..I edited the imaginary height to a more common height, so more people can relate to it

[paco]

Well, the only good place to land looks to be behind the demarcation line! You could try into wind first of all, steep, and keeping just the rotors the right side of it - if you can see down the hill is about right. Maybe vertical in at the last minute.

If that wasn't comfortable, maybe look at riding the backlash on the lee side, but in that wind it might be a bit far away, unless you hovered in.

IMHO :)

Phil

[407 too]

well 170, thats the $40.00 question, what is the wind ??

it appears to be light to me, blowing light snow up the hillside, but not strong enough to blow it at a large angle at the top.

if it was a very strong wind, with corn snow being pulled off the hillside, you would see a definate angle to the snow at the crest of the hill.

but those are guesses, you have to be there to determine what is actually happening.

[fishboy]

Why would you want to spend any time at all on the lee side of a mountain? That's fine if you and the winds are light. If they're anything above 30kts, you should stay well away from the lee side and make your approach at maybe 90 degrees to the wind, in a nice low power shallow approach giving yourself a nice big escape route into wind and down the hill.
I have spent many hours taking a max gross weight (external load) helicopter to mountain tops in VERY windy conditions. There is sometimes no way you would even GET to the top of the mountain, without climbing with the updrafts. The last thing you want to do, is get on the wrong side of a mountain, they are much harder than you;)

[Flyting]

Does anyone know if there is a good instructional book on "Mountain Flying". I hear the course at Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flying in Penticton, B.C. is really great. If anyone has done their course and has a copy of their guide please shout... Or any other good books or reads...

[Gordon Bennet]

The Helicopter Pilot's Handbook by Phil Croucher would be a good start. I believe Normam Bailey did one as well.

G

[Codger]

I've flown light aircraft for some time in southern Alberta, Canada. Only as a passenger in rotary in the Rocks. Climbing at 2k fpm to instantly dropping at 5kfpm can induce a serious pucker factor.

STALKING THE MOUNTAIN WAVE Mountain lee wave soaring and the history of wave soaring in southern Alberta, Canada.by Ursula Wiese is a great read. If you don't understand the way the weather works around here you can end up in a pile of hurt in a real hurry. If you pay attention the flying is never boring and always awe-inspiring.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

BC Helicopters have a small manual that accompanies their mountain course.
The thing i would note is that the principles are fairly simple and derive from the basics of confined areas with the added fun of genuine limited power, unusual winds/turbulence, the potential to get eaten by a hungry bear.
I did the course for fun last summer and it's a great chance to improve your general skills and start to learn about mountain flying. I'd emphasis the practical aspect - the principles are simple but the practical application is harder as real situations combine a lot of aspects in ways a textbook cannot cover or convey. And i would emphasis the start as it takes time and tutored practise to become proficient. I didn't do any snow or high winds but i did lose/adapt my ingrained habit of flying airfield style rectangular circuits (!) and learnt a lot about making approaches as safe as is possible given terrain, wind, trees, etc. Surface/slope analysis is fun too - you can arrive in your clearance and find a range of nasty obstructions, loose dust/ash, not as flat as you thought surfaces.
Don't know if anyone makes one, but a video with commentary would be good for teaching.
British Columbia scenary is very impressive too, so if you fancy a change from the likes of good old flat Florida, have a look at http://www.bchelicopters.com/ or give em a call - they're very friendly.
(One other general note, there's some structural difference in rotary careers in canada wrt other parts of world - the instructors i met had huge amounts of experience - another plus point for the nation.)

[Canadian Rotorhead]

http://http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0605&file=whoneedsmountain.htm

Who Needs Mountain Flying Training?

Understanding how the speed and direction of the wind can change with the shape of the land is a critical first step to flying safely in the mountains.

By Jan Rustad and Tim Simmons

Turbulence, backlash, mountain illusions, high-density altitude, down-flow--all terms that lead to anxiety and fear. Fear leads to tension, which diminishes both rational decision-making and smooth, accurate pilot control. Not the ideal image of a mountain flying pilot who needs to be cool, calm and collected--minimizing the risks and maximizing the aircraft's capability.

Mountain flying can be just plain dangerous. But do we just accept the additional risks and fumble our way fearfully to the scenic but scary peaks? Certainly not. Pilots tend to be a calculating bunch, and that's exactly how we should approach the business of mountain flying--in a very calculated and precise fashion.

Through appropriate ground schooling and flight training with an experienced mountain-flying instructor, it is possible for a student pilot to develop a healthy knowledge and respect for the mountain winds. Understanding how the speed and direction of the wind can change with the shape of the land is a critical first step to flying safely in the mountains.

We need knowledge. With knowledge we can build experience safely.

Jacques Giard is a Senior Instructor at the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training. He has been teaching the Mountain Flying Course for 10 years. On the first day of Ground school Giard often likens upflow and downflow to an escalator. "If this escalator is going down, it is like downflow. If you decide to climb up or even remain stationary on the descending escalator it will take more energy."

Pilots can learn that with a precise and disciplined style of flying, and using specific flying techniques, it is possible to safely evaluate the mountain winds. Easily recognizing up-flowing air from down-flowing air is one of the basic necessities. In the early stages of the Canadian Helicopters' Mountain Course, students are introduced to the "Contour Crawl".

The Contour Crawl is carried out in close proximity to the hill at 50 kt. and at a fixed altitude. If the aircraft can be accurately controlled to maintain these parameters, it will show some very obvious flight characteristics, so that the pilot can determine up-flowing air from down-flowing air.

Before launching into the contour crawl itself, we need to know the power setting required to maintain straight and level flight at 50 kt., in air that is neither descending or climbing (i.e. in the middle of a wide valley, not close to any hills). This power setting we call "Baseline Torque". It is our benchmark for determining whether we are in upflow or downflow.

In upflow, the power required to maintain altitude is noticeably less than baseline torque. The air is relatively smooth, unless affected by mechanical turbulence. The aircraft, although perfectly in trim, will crab away from the hill.

In downflow, the power required to maintain altitude is more than baseline torque. There is more turbulence. The airspeed is harder to maintain and the aircraft will crab into the hill.

Aided by an elaborate 18 chapter Mountain Manual, computer PowerPoint presentations and the use of classroom mountain models, the instructors can explain the complexities of mountain flying. But, for the student, the real learning begins in the helicopter.

Understanding the issues and procedures is not the same as being able to put them into practice. One of the key reasons for the difficulty the student will experience at the start of the course is the mountain illusions.

Illusions in the mountains can humble the most experienced pilots. Pieter Koster remembers his Mountain Flying course many years ago. "At the time, I had about 7,000 hr. and was already a check and training pilot." Bill Foote, one of the Senior Penticton Instructors who has since retired, took him to a place affectionately known as "Happy Valley". As they got close to the valley, Bill asked Pieter to maintain 50 kt. and 4,500 ft.

"I was already told in ground school how and why illusions happen, " said Koster, "and armed with this knowledge I was sure I could handle this simple looking valley--after all, I was no novice pilot." As they entered Happy Valley, despite Pieter's efforts, the aircraft lost 20 kt. of airspeed and gained 200 ft. "It was humbling," said Pieter.

There is no cure for illusion. It is not something you become immune to, although you can learn to overcome its effects. Without careful control of airspeed, altitude and trim, you will not be able to gauge the strength or direction of the airflow over the terrain. A pilot needs to overcome the effects of the illusions in order to fly accurately in the mountains.

The Canadian Helicopters School in Penticton, BC, Canada, and its predecessor, Okanagan Helicopters, is considered a pioneer in Mountain Flying Training. The first known formal class was in 1952 when the Canadian Forces sent a few of their military pilots for mountain flying training. Since then thousands of military, police and civilian pilots from around the world have taken the course. Although the basic teachings of airflow and flying techniques have remained the same over the years, the syllabus has been continually refined to stay relevant to today's aircraft and today's missions.

Led by Jan Rustad, the school's Chief Flying Instructor, the six full-time certified instructors average well over 10,000 flight hours each. As a group, their experience in mountain flying is formidable. Jan has 36 years of flying helicopters in the Mountains and over 17,000 hours. Both he and his instructors not only teach flying, but they also remain current as operational pilots in the challenging Canadian charter business. Every summer they are "set free" from the school. Their missions can spread them across Canada. The flying ranges from fire fighting in the mountains of southern British Columbia to exploration work in the fiords of the High Arctic. "It's a chance to put what we teach into practice," said Tim Simmons, an instructor. "Also to continue learning. Learning from other pilots who are operational all year, and learning from our own experiences to fine-tune what we already know."

Pieter Koster has been flying helicopters for over 25 years and instructing for 14. "I flew for quite a few years without a Mountain Course, and although I understood the basics of mountain winds, I couldn't predict with any confidence what was going to happen as I approached the hillside. To be honest, it frightened me. All I could do to stay safe was to substantially reduce my payload." Pieter laughed as he recalls his early days of flying, "and it was still very uncomfortable!"

So who should take a Mountain Course? This question was asked of Kevin Mitchener, also a seasoned Mountain Flying Instructor, originally from Inuvik, Northwest Territories. His answer may surprise some: "Every helicopter pilot can benefit from a Mountain Course." He makes his case with many examples of pilots he has trained who are unlikely to ever see a mountain in their regular flying duties. "The training makes you a better pilot. More disciplined, more accurate, more aware of the wind, better equipped to maximize the aircraft's capabilities, safely."

Kathy Stewart is a pilot for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). She originally took the Mountain Course in Penticton in 1988, but this year she is back for a 5-hr. Mountain Refresher Course. "This refresher course is keeping the mountain flying issues and procedures clear in my head." Kathy is based in Alberta--a province that has both the flattest of prairies on the east side and mountains up to 12,000 ft. on the west side. "I don't get to the mountains every day so when I am dispatched to the high country, it's vital that I know what I'm doing. This refresher course is just an excellent way to fine tune my skills."

Once completed, the course finds the students comfortable with new terminology: demarcation line, boundary layer, crest of the hill, loaded disk, fanning out the approach, to name a few.

Each mountain formation has its own unique airflow, requiring a unique reconnaissance, approach and departure. The different formations include: ridges, crowns, cirques, shoulders, saddles, pinnacles, dead-end valleys, alpine meadows and canyons. Although each potential landing site in the mountains is different, there is a basic framework of procedures that will allow the pilot to remain safe and organized. This procedure is called the Basic Mountain Recce.

The Basic Mountain Recce is designed to assess the landing zone, find the wind and set up the approach. Throughout this procedure an escape route is always maintained. This escape route is commonly known as the drop-off.

Helicopters today are a far cry from those built 40 or 50 years ago, with more powerful engines and more efficient blades. The perception is often that the newer aircraft can overcome anything nature has to offer. This is a dangerous and misguided notion.

Decision-making is key in the mountain flying business. So, how does a pilot decide if it is safe to land? Does the helicopter have enough power to commit to a landing? Is there too much downflow, or too much upflow? Are there other concerns, such as backlash? For pilots to make safe decisions they need a well defined set of guidelines to live by.

In days-gone-by, pilots would make decisions based on their experience and that "seat of the pants" feel of the aircraft. A modern day mountain course teaches decision-making based on torque readings in the helicopter while flying the recce procedure and knowledge of the exact airflow around the landing site. Rustad likes to stress in his ground school presentations that "a mountain flying course is, in essence, the study and science of terrain airflow. It is of paramount importance to each and every helicopter pilot wherever he or she is operating."

He explained, "The airflow is ducted, changed and shaped by the terrain. Pilots with the knowledge provided on the CHL mountain flying course can confidently assess each location, before committing to land."

Wind finding is a major part of any mountain flying course, and Jan sums it up in simple terms: "The helicopter itself is like a weathervane on top of a barn. It always wants to point to the wind, especially in slow speed flight." He added that, "By evaluating the wind speed and direction precisely, it allows the pilot to pick the safest possible approach and departure paths to maximize the use of the wind vectors flowing over the landing zone. The end result is the pilot maximizing aircraft performance and safety during landings and takeoffs."

So, asking who needs a mountain flying course is like asking who needs insurance. Greg Lester, a senior pilot for the RCMP, had an interesting perspective. "Good training," he said, "is the best insurance you can buy."

Jan Rustad is chief flying instructor at the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training in Penticton, B.C. Tim Simmons is an instructor at the school.

[paco]

One thing to bear in mind about a school - they all teach you ways of getting into ever-more esoteric landing sites, which is OK, but few of them teach you the bread and butter stuff, like how to transit through the mountains for an hour or so and getting the least bumps for the customers, or using updraights for the least fuel used. I'm sure Jan does that (and he knows his stuff), but it's something to think about.

phil

[remote hook]

Phil.

WTF are you talking about????

Just admit that there are other ppl out there with more knowledge and experience than you.

You're concerned about the school teaching you to transit the mountains for several hour flights? Well once you understand the flow of air in the mountains and the forces affecting it, you will have no trouble transiting them... I assure you.

Jan Rustad et al train civilian/military pilots from all over the world for a reason. There are guys at VIH, Highland, Alpine and others who have been doing and teaching these methods for decades. They KNOW what they are talking about, and they teach you the "bread and butter" that gets you through a day/summer/year of everyday work in the these environments. You seem bent on trying to discredit their efforts and it's getting old.

RH

[paco]

I'm not decrying Jan's efforts at all. I went to a school over that way that gave me a ride to and from sites that was very bumpy and not comfortable at all. Knew all about how to land in the wierdest places, but knew sh*t about getting there and back - wrong side of the valley, wrong positioning, using too much power and ended up calling the trip off early because he was using too much fuel. It's an extremely useful trick to be able to get nearly 4 hours out of a jetbox or get most of the way up to a site just by using updraughts, and it isn't something you can "just pick up."

Flew with a non-instructor from another place, same area, and it was entirely satisfactory. The Bighorn guys at Springbank are good, as well.

I'm just pointing out to potential students that there's a lot more to flying in mountains than landing or taking off, and that not all instructors know what they are talking about. There is a lot of stuff taught in all areas of this industry that is just plain sh*te, and everybody assumes that what is taught in one part of it is valid for all other areas. Just because something's been taught for decades, doesn't mean to say it's right, and I've been questioning things ever since I got to Canada and saw the appalling standard of material available to train pilots with (not including From The Ground Up - being Canadian you will know who I mean ;)). Since Transport Canada now use my stuff for the exams, I reckon I do know something of what I speak about.

Different techniques are for different situations, and there are times when a certain approach is suitable and when it isn't. To be taught that there is only one type of approach (or rather, that "that's the only one we teach here") is not the mark of a good school in my opinion. You should be shown all the options and left to make your own decisions.

Naturally, I do not include Jan's outfit in these comments (if he's reading this, Hi again, Jan!), but there are one or two round there who could do with a shakeup.

Phil

[delta3]

Paco

I would only do steep approaches if I was shure to stay in the laminar part, that means the approach is not too steep, to LS is not too far behind the ridge, basic wind is not too gusty...., because I do not want to end up at the wrong side of the demarcation line with a very steep descent, just before landing.
In the Mistral zone, the winds tends to be very gusty (typical 35 gusting 50), so for lesser ridges a shallow approach is the best in that case, provide you know a good path in depending on the other mountains around. That is at least what I do at my own LS.

Allow me to say that for anyone with not enough experience, be it flight technique or lack of local knowledge of the particular mountains and the local winds caution should be taken because unless it is a clean, isolated nice ridge, wind may not really be so predictable. Just saw a fire bomber (205) pilot come in at LFMQ (Le Castellet France) a few weeks ago with a very white face ... I am inclined to state that this was not because of lack of experience...


my 2cents, d3

[paco]

Yeah, it can be tricky, and local knowledge helps a great deal - a Boss I once had battled the Mistral for nearly five hours in a Beaver - he said he wasn't sure if the ADF was working or not, stuck on the same heading! (I didn't ask why he stayed there that long - I think there was a General in the back)

You cannot afford to assume anything in mountains.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying shallow approaches shouldn't be used (perhaps I should clarify the terminology - almost horizontal ones, where the collective is in the armpit and if a downdraught pushes you down you've got no hope of regaining your flight path).

I just object to people stating that shallow approaches, or whatever, are "the only way". I've flown with enough guys who have the experience to know what they are doing who use steeper approaches (indeed, I was taught that way). Of course, they use shallow ones as well. You just have to use what works.

As for transit flying, I did four years of a scheduled helicopter service between Glasgow and Fort William, and all sorts of places in between, and believe me, you soon learn the value of a smooth ride to regular customers!

[remote hook]

Paco,

Fair enough, but you are lumping Jan in with these other schools of which you speak. Jan doesn't preach a narrow, one size fits all(situations) approach to mountain work. What he does preach is an in depth UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics of wind in the mountains. Once that is understood, then the pilot has the tools with which to make the best approach possible, landing if all indications are that it can be accomplished safely and with a very high degree of certainty.

There are certain situations where CHL does condone a "steeper" type approach. "Steeper" benig a relative term of course, and then usually only in Saddle type situations with higher winds. Again, steep is probably not the right term.

I just wanted to make sure you are not lumping Jan into the group of average Mounatain Schools that you speak of.

RH

[Matthew Parsons]

Whether or not the schools teach it, Phil has a point about mountain flying being much more than mountain landings.

Illusions, navigation, performance, enroute winds, and weather are all considerations that require additional attention in the mountains. I've flown a number of SARs in the Rockies and typically find crashes that occurred during the enroute phase, more so than the landing phase.

The important thing is to understand that the discussion here is not training. If you haven't been trained in mountain flying, don't use this discussion as your licence to kill (yourself). Take a course.

[SARREMF]

I have taught mountain flying in the UK for some time. I have read the thread with interest as you have all described valid techiniqes for different occasions. However, the winning post has got to be by Mathew Parsons. Dont think you can read this and go practice! Get a course. I have been caught out when teaching and had some close shaves because the wind wasn't doing what I expected - or was that complacency creeping in? Either way the hills can and will bite if you do not give them the utmost respect all the time. The only true way to learn respect is to be shown by some one.
And just for the debate. I prefer to teach people to stay on the updraughting side level with the LZ or just below and use the wind to reduce my power requirement so the lever is NOT in my arm pit. However, every student has to start somewhere so you start with the constant angle approach then,when they have that, you show them how you could do it other ways and explain why and when to make the choice. They all work in different situations.
Interestingly, I always prefered teaching on days with 15 to 20kts of wind than days with less than 10 - always more of a challenge and more diffcult! I have completed SAR jobs in gusting over 60kts and thats just not fun - exciting - but definately not fun!

[paco]

Remote Hook - you make a good point, and just to make it clear I certainly don't lump Jan in with my comments - in fact he and I spent a year together one week at Rainbow Lake. The CHL school has an international reputation, and there are also a couple of others who are quite good - I believe I mentioned Paul & Richard at Bighorn. Both of those are accepted by BC Forestry, and they wouldn't be there if they didn't know what they were doing.

Interestingly enough, one of the questions in the FAA ATPL(H) concerns pinnacle-type approaches to tall buildings in high winds and turbulence, and the answer to that one is a steeper-than-normal approach.

Anyhow, back to that single malt.

Phil

[remote hook]

Ah, but you're assuming the answer is correct just because it's on the exam...;)

Now the relevance of EXAM content... that's a topic we could hash out for a while!

RH

[paco]

Well, that's another good point :) - having gone through nearly every one of the JAA questions to check I've got my course right, there were a good deal with highly suspect answers.

Phil

[Rich Lee]

Remote Hook has written Jan doesn't preach a narrow, one size fits all(situations) approach to mountain work. What he does preach is an in depth UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics of wind in the mountains. Once that is understood, then the pilot has the tools with which to make the best approach possible, landing if all indications are that it can be accomplished safely and with a very high degree of certainty.

I could not agree more. Each mountain landing is different. Even landings to the same mountain location at slightly different times can be completely different. There is no one techinque that applies to each and every situation. The skilled high mountain pilot is able to correlate the man, machine, environment, mission and use his knowledge of techniques and the various skills at his disposal to decide:
1. Do I have the skills and knowledge necessary to land?
2. Does the machine have the performance within allowable limits to land?
3. Do all the environmental factors allow a landing?
4. Do the mission benefits warrant acceptance of the risk?
5. Even if the previous factors indicate that I can land, should I land?

I will start by saying I have known, and currently know more experienced high mountain pilots than I. Some have been higher, some have been there more often but I consider myself as having enough experience to comment.

I have used both US military/FAA methods and European Methods (primarily Swiss, French and Italian) to land in high mountains and found each alone, or in combination necessary at times. I have worked up to 18,000 feet on a routine basis in virtually all conditions the mountains have to offer over a nearly 40 year period and have rarely used one single method or technique. I do not know Jan, but if Remote Hook has represented his basic teaching premise correctly, he is teaching what I have learned from others and my own personal experience.

[chopperchav]

I was lucky enough to do the two week course with CHL last year in penticton and was the only civilian on the course, the rest being Canadian military. For them it was one of the highlights of the their careers and all said how much their flying had improved on the course(multi thousand hour pilots).
They had no doubt done the military school of mountain flying ie. steep approaches above demarcation line etc. which I can understand in times of war maybe be better if you need to get machine down quickly and if you stack it you are just a battle stastitic. However, I am sure these guys were all converted to shallow approaches and all the techniques that go with it.

Just flicking through manual I was given which was obviously foundation for course. Table of contents reads: i)Geography of mountains ii)Mountain winds + weather iii)Illusions iv)Contour crawl v)Basic mountain reece vi)Circling Recce vii)Standard mountain approach, Landing + Take-off viii)Shoulders and ledges ix)High alt. ops + aircraft performance x)Ridges and crowns xi)Saddles xii)Cirques xiii)Glaciers and snowfalls xiv)Pinnacles xv)Alpine meadows + high alt confined areas xvi)Canyons, Dead-end valleys, and riverbeds xvii)Log pads and Platforms in Mountain confined areas.
As you can see it was a very thorough course and I havent seen any text book come close in going into so much detail. Also experiencing the sometimes stomach churning conditions mountains can throw at you with an instructor is far more advisable than trying it on your own after reading some handbook.

Interestingly on the course the only sites we aborted landings on were where updrafts were so strong we were unable to load the disc sufficiently to say we were in control of aircraft and attempting to land would have been dangerous. How would you deal with that Paco where a steep approach would initially load disc to arrest vertical descent after which you would almost be out of control.

[paco]

In that sort of wind I would be very careful with a steep approach because the induced flow would be so little that you would have to almost bottom the collective just to reduce the angle of attack. I've gone in sideways to sites before, to keep out of the main airstream, though that was Ben Nevis, so there was plenty of power available, even in a 206.

How would I deal with that? I wouldn't be! If you have read my posts properly you would have seen that I don't consider steep approaches to be an exclusive option. It is simply my preferred method since it provides the best all-round results, i.e. actually making the site, with or without an engine, which is something to think about because there won't be anywhere else to go. Dunno about you, but I like to maximise my chances of staying alive! :)

I've had enough nods of approval from people who know what they're about, including the inspector who did my first Canadian licence ride (Jim Gray), so I know I'm not wrong. In fact, we did some of the navex and the latter half of the trip in the mountains because he said it was nice for him to be with someone who wasn't trying to kill him! It's not better than anybody else's method, it's just different.

The other point to consider is that I'm one of the few people who consider that this is one industry where the customer isn't always right. I don't actually care if the weather stays too windy for three days. If it's not safe, I ain't going in and that's that. Naturally, I will have a look, if it's safe enough, but I have, on occasions, not even started the engine, which I know is not politically correct in Canada. It amazes me how customers who cannot see the end of the runway in fog or snow still want you to start up and have a go.

Phil

[delta3]

One good thing about those very strong updrafts is that once you landed (shallow I suggest), you can take off like a rocket...


d3

[paco]

Yeah, like the proverbial startled rabbit! :)

Phil

[munchkins]

Too bad more helicopter pilots couldn't have received mountain flying instruction from John Kennedy, ex Highland Helicopters Base Manager from Castlegar, BC. IMO he was not only an excellent mountain pilot but a real gentleman. I consider myself extremely luck to have been on the receiving end of John's instruction.
Munchkins

[romeo foxtrot mike]

Can anyone give me some advice on the various mountain flying courses offered in New Zealand? Which of the schools/courses are worth doing? Any to steer clear of? and how do they compare with similar courses in Canada and other places?

[rotorfloat]

Canadian Helicopters in Penticton BC (http://www.canadianhelicopters.ca/frame/content/penticton.html) offers, arguably, the best mountain course in the country.

[malabo]

OK, I'll argue....

CH in Penticton has been coasting on a 50 year old reputation for about 40 years. In fairness, they were one of the first, and they were also one of the more organized to develop a proper syllabus and cadre of specialized instructors. They can charge 30% more than anyone else and on the basis of an international reputation still get some good contracts (like Dutch police - just in case someone ever builds a mountain there).

They put on a good mountain course for foreign governments with surplus budgets. Local operators in BC might have the opinion that in a time-is-money environment there are more efficient ways to handle a helicopter in the mountains, and in fact all local operators have developed their own mountain courses that are more aligned with what is actually done to earn a living in the mountains. Some of the BC flying schools have also developed some serious mountain flying courses that are recognized by certification agencies.

Last I checked, a good mountain course in BC was about 20 hours on a Jetranger at close to $1000/hr. The NZ courses I came across were still using pistons, so I can't compare. Terrain is pretty similar. Nobody can afford accidents, and you need to be carded to work for the Forest Service, so there's enough self-policing within the industry to make sure you are ready.

malabo

[albatross]

OK, I'll argue....
CH in Penticton has been coasting on a 50 year old reputation for about 40 years. In fairness, they were one of the first, and they were also one of the more organized to develop a proper syllabus and cadre of specialized instructors. They can charge 30% more than anyone else and on the basis of an international reputation still get some good contracts (like Dutch police - just in case someone ever builds a mountain there).
They put on a good mountain course for foreign governments with surplus budgets. Local operators in BC might have the opinion that in a time-is-money environment there are more efficient ways to handle a helicopter in the mountains, and in fact all local operators have developed their own mountain courses that are more aligned with what is actually done to earn a living in the mountains. Some of the BC flying schools have also developed some serious mountain flying courses that are recognized by certification agencies.
Last I checked, a good mountain course in BC was about 20 hours on a Jetranger at close to $1000/hr. The NZ courses I came across were still using pistons, so I can't compare. Terrain is pretty similar. Nobody can afford accidents, and you need to be carded to work for the Forest Service, so there's enough self-policing within the industry to make sure you are ready.
malabo
Have you done the Penticton Mountain Course?

[FlyAnotherDay]

I did some mountain training at Wanaka Helicopters a couple of years ago There's a post in the archives here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1162432&highlight=Mountain#post1162432). I have a PPL and haven't done any mountain training anywhere else so can't compare. I rated them & would happily go back to them. Then they had a collection of R22s, at least one R44 and used a Squirrel of some sort for SAR.
Hope this helps.

[HeliDriverNZ]

A mountain course is a requirement in NZ for your commercial and private licences so pretty much all training establishments will offer some sort of course but these dont need to be done in the mountains ( I know strange) so head to the south island (mountains up to 13000 ft).
Most of the training is done in piston heli (most are 22's at $450-$550/hr most 44's are $1000+/hr) you can hire turbine gear (both B206 or MD500 are readily avalible every where from $1250-$1600/hr).
As far as specific places go Wanaka Heli is good as is Garden city in Christchurch Try Heliventures in Haast great location and good people think they have an instructor on board full time.
Hope this all helps take care
Dan

[romeo foxtrot mike]

Thanks for the replies, I guess if the course content and standard between Canada and NZ is similar, then the deciding factor comes down to the $Aus exchange rate?

[helimutt]

Does anyone know of an easily accessible list of mountain flying tips.
Also, is there anywhere in Europe that does a good condensed mountain flying course?

Cheers.

[B Sousa]

Eurocopter Endorses Canadian Helicopters Limited (CHL) Advanced Helicopter Mountain Flying Training Program | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/1888/)

Canadian Helicopters has had a course for years that was pretty highly acclaimed. Jan Rustad, who is mentioned in the article, has been at the game for many years. Its worth the trip over and maybe cheaper than anything in Europe.

Canadian Helicopters (http://www.canadianhelicopters.ca/intro_1.html)

[henrymonster]

I know that Rise Helicopters regularly do mountain flying courses in Wales as well as Formation Flying courses.

Their Chief pilot is James Kenwright and they also have great ex military instructors who specialise in these courses.

They are based in Gloucestershire

[GeorgeMandes]

As someone that did the Canadian Helicopters full mountain course in 2004 and has received annual recurrent mountain training every year since then from their staff, I think the Penticton operation is fantastic -- both the curriculum and and the instructors. Just in April, I had the pleasure of flying with Mel Schiller of Canadian Helicopters in a 407 for a few days. Anyone that believes Canadian Helicopters is coasting, probably hasn't had the experience of flying with Mel or their other capable instructors. You will be fully challenged.

Canadian Helicopters is to mountain training what the Bell Academy is to emergency training. I couldn't imagine operating a helicopter in a mountainous environment without their training, and I seriously doubt anyone that has received this training from the Penticton operation would feel differently.

[Runway101]

Does anyone know of an easily accessible list of mountain flying tips.
Also, is there anywhere in Europe that does a good condensed mountain flying course?

That's what I found to be very useful:

Helicopter Pilot's Handbook Of Mountain Flying & Advanced Techniques
(Airlife Pilot's Handbooks) (Paperback)

Table of contents available at Amazon.com too. It's just below 100 pages but contains all you need to know. First read then get some training with somebody experienced.

Amazon.com: Helicopter Pilot's Handbook Of Mountain Flying & Advanced Techniques (Airlife Pilot's Handbooks): Norman Bailey: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Helicopter-Handbook-Mountain-Techniques-Handbooks/dp/1840373210)

Almost all (if not all) schools in Switzerland offer the Swiss mountain rating and are willing to give some accelerated training without the rating if you are in a rush.

[Canadian Rotorhead]

Okay,

Will someone please tell how how a "formation flying" course will benefit an operational pilot?

Good Lord!?

RH

[dragman]

I've heard of Welsh coming from "The Valleys", but never "the Mountains". Do they have mountains in Wales? As far as New Zealand goes, there are no establishments that specialise in mountain training, but as mentioned earlier all establishments offer mountain training. Wouldn't go to Christchurch though, the mountains are 20 minutes away. Wanaka is one of the better options.

[RadioSaigon]

...there are no establishments that specialise in mountain training...

hmmmm, that might not be a completely accurate statement there dragman. As a former NZ mountain (slab-wing) driver, NZWF-based, it is hard for me to imagine anyone being more "specialised" than those pilots that are in the mountains from the moment their wheels/skids leave the ground! Pilots in the NZWF/NZQN/NZTZ (not to mention NZMC and the West Coast) area probably spend 95%+ of their airborne time in the mountains and have been heard to mention how "naked" they feel without mountains/valleys in immediate proximity.

Whilst the fling-wing trainers in the area probably market themselves less as mountain specialists than helicopter trainers, as others have mentioned the mountain training is a required part of the NZ syllabus. Some "specialisation" must be assumed. Operators of the likes of Southern Lakes, Over theTop and Wanaka Helicopters amongst numerous others spring straight to mind, as do pilots like Billy Black, Hannibal Hayes, the Hollows boys, Simon Spencer-Bower and many others (I could write page after page!) -specialist mountain helicopter pilots all.

The Wakatipu Aero Club in NZQN offers the only specialist mountain flying course offered in the country (to the best of my knowledge) and whilst that course is designed and operated around slab-wing pilots, the techniques of safely and competently operating in the mountains are the same -with the addition of those activities unique to helicopter operations.

[dragman]

True, all the operators you mentioned have pilots with a wealth of mountain experience, but how many of them have had training other than that which is required by the CPL syllabus? The training they've received is through experience. With the exception of Wanaka Helicopters, the operators you have mentioned only train their own pilots.

Wanaka helicopters' main interest, I believe, is training AB initio to CPL. Their instructors are very experienced in the area and it's well worth considering them for some mountain flying training.

[GeorgeMandes]

True, all the operators you mentioned have pilots with a wealth of mountain experience, but how many of them have had training other than that which is required by the CPL syllabus? The training they've received is through experience.

To that point, a friend Jeff Cooper, once commented that there are three things all men think they are expert in, by virtue of being born male, two of which are shooting and driving. For helicopter pilots, I would add a fourth, and that is mountain flying. I routinely ask pilots about their mountain flying experience and knowledge, and always hear they understand mountain flying based on, for example, their military experience, the FAA syllabus, and having flown some in the mountains. Prior to taking the Canadian Helicopters full mountain course, I had taken a number of fixed wing mountain courses, flown extensively in the mountains of the west and Alaska, and considered myself somewhat experienced in mountain flying. After being exposed to the mountain course in Penticton at Canadian Helicopters, I was absolutely blown away by what they teach and how much further developed it is than anything else I had been exposed to. I guess that isn't surprising when you realize they have been developing this program over about fifty years and essentially all they do in Penticton is teach mountain flying.

[Aucky]

Can anyone suggest the best (if there is a "best") country/companies for mountain training on a JAA license (R44/B206)? I know many companies offer mountain training in europe and the states, but am only aware of the Swiss providing a 'Mountain Rating' due to the local requirement to have one for various tasks. I'm obviously more interested in the training than the 'rating' as most places don't require a one, but if a 'rating' of sorts would be the most comprehensive training and open opportunities for other trips then why not...

I'm hoping to fly down to Geneva, Albertville, Courchevel & Megeve soon in a 44 and have done some training in early 2004 in the Drakensbergs, but that was a while back and the most adventurous mountains I have encountered since then are the hills of Snowdon :( I only plan to venture around Chamonix altiport and Mont Blanc with an experienced mountain pilot this time around, but I would like to become much more proficient in this skill.

Also does anyone know any useful resources for 'rule of thumb', or theoretical tuition regarding mountain flight? I heard it mentioned that in less than 20kts wind your unlikely to get mountain waves or serious down draughting air, but that clear blue skies can lull one into a false sense of security if the winds up, due to clear air turbulence, mountain waves & downdraughts... (Obviously there are the usual dangers of limited power/over pitch etc)

Any input would be much appreciated, even if it's simply the name of a book that should not be missed :ok:

Thanks

[What Limits]

Canadian Helicopters Mountain Course (http://www.canadianhelicopters.ca/frame/penticton_2.html)

over here regarded as one of the best.

Nothing to do with me btw.

[Bertie Thruster]

Also does anyone know any useful resources for 'rule of thumb' regarding mountain flight?

Only do it if you are getting paid to do it.

[[email protected]]

Also does anyone know any useful resources for 'rule of thumb', or theoretical tuition regarding mountain flight? Yes, - don't do it in a Robinson:)

[toptobottom]

Yes, - don't do it in a Robinsonhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

I think Crab's tongue is firmly in his cheek... I regularly fly in the mountains in the UK and abroad in R44s without issue, as do many on here. This (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Helicopter-Pilots-Manual-Mountain-Techniques/dp/1847971059/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294912422&sr=1-1)is definitely worth reading.

TTB

[pdoyle]

that you joe

[Flying Binghi]

I regularly fly in the mountains in the UK and abroad in R44s without issue

...so far.





.

[toptobottom]

So far, for over 10 years. What could possibly go wrong?! :p

[Rotorbee]

Oh, yes, mountain flying in the UK. You must be kidding.;)
If I get that right, your highest mountain is 1344m. In Switzerland only landings above 1100m qualify as mountain landings and that is still pretty low, even for a Robi or a Schweizer/Hughes.
For the Robinson haters. I have flown quite a bit with Robinsons in the mountains. It isn't a problem, as long as you know what you are doing. Stay within the limits, which is the same for any helicopter. In a Robi you can still hover in Big Bear on a warm day with almost half the fuel and two on board.
Ok, that was with an Alpha. Wasn't as heavy as the Beta.
The R22 is certainly more difficult to control in windy situations, but in that case you just don't go. But they are not unsafe.
Sure, if you want to be working comfortable in the mountains, there is no way around a Lama or a B3.

[toptobottom]

I was waiting for that one! :ouch:. Admittedly, there won't be the DA challenges of flying high in Switzerland (for example), but a gusting 45kt wind will still get your attention, even in the Welsh mountains - and especially in a 44 :eek:

[paco]

Yes, try flying from Fort William to Glasgow (through Glencoe and past Black Mountain) in a 55 kt wind in a 206. The wind round pointy bits of ground still provides the same challenges at whatever height!

However, real mountain flying, I grant you, is when you have to get into the landing spot with no collective or throttle left.

Phil

[SilsoeSid]

Oh, yes, mountain flying in the UK. You must be kidding. ;)
If I get that right, your highest mountain is 1344m. In Switzerland only landings above 1100m qualify as mountain landings and that is still pretty low, even for a Robi or a Schweizer/Hughes.

So our highest mountain is over-qualified then :p

SS
3,718 m - Lake Alice, Mt Kenya - Gazelle
3,434 m - Grossglockner - Alouette III
2,160 m - Saillagouse - Lynx 7

[toptobottom]

http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/194mph.jpg

Windy Welsh mountains in a R44. Here we have 194mph (top right) or 169kts. R44 cruise is, say 112kts, so 57kt tailwind... throw in to some tall pointy bits to turb things up a bit, with maybe some funnelling, a few vortices and downdraughts and hang on tight :ok:

[newfieboy]

Ha ha.......try the backside of the Rocks in Canada on a longline doing siesmic............:ok: or bird towing in the coastal ranges in Labrador......:ok: yep they are real mountains........:ugh:

[BH06L3]

Those R44's are pretty quick. Have never flown one but I remember in the mountains being about 5 min. back from a heliport and beside me an R44. I thought I was going to be #1. By the time I got back to the heliport in the 206 the R44 was already shut down (blades still turning). Although he was light on fuel and had only one passenger. My personal record in the 206L3 was about 188mph GS. And with TC test pilot on a test flight in a dive we got the AS350 up to 164Kts IAS. That was interesting, just don't pull out to quick at the bottom.

Back on topic Canadian Helicopters is one of the best mountain training schools out there, but possibly one of the most expensive as well. I guess you get what you pay for. However there are a lot of decent training schools offering mountain courses in Canada. But my opinion is unless you fly for fun in the mountians and have a bag full of cash don't pay for it. I know lots of pilots who paid for the mountain course hoping to find work who never found work in the mountains. If a company likes you and needs you, then they will pay for it.

[SilsoeSid]

And with TC test pilot on a test flight in a dive we got the AS350 up to 164Kts IAS.

Just to prove my ignorance, test flight, passenger, exceeding VNE, did you wear parachutes?

[BH06L3]

For the legalities it was required that a company pilot accompanies the Test Pilot in this situation. As I am sure Transport Canada would not break there own rules.

[Crome Dome]

Sorry bit of a tangent to your threads but I am interested in some information about a lynx crash that happened in sallagouse in 1986. Does anyone have any info.....?????

[MightyGem]

Does anyone have any info.....?????
Why? It crashed, two experienced pilots died. It could have been avoided. Someone on this site:
Aviation (http://www.arrse.co.uk/aviation/)
may be willing to elaborate. Or, maybe not.

[Crome Dome]

why do you say could of been avoided???

[Runway101]

Oh, yes, mountain flying in the UK. You must be kidding.
If I get that right, your highest mountain is 1344m. In Switzerland only landings above 1100m qualify as mountain landings and that is still pretty low, even for a Robi or a Schweizer/Hughes.
For the Robinson haters. I have flown quite a bit with Robinsons in the mountains. It isn't a problem, as long as you know what you are doing. Stay within the limits, which is the same for any helicopter. In a Robi you can still hover in Big Bear on a warm day with almost half the fuel and two on board.
Ok, that was with an Alpha. Wasn't as heavy as the Beta.
The R22 is certainly more difficult to control in windy situations, but in that case you just don't go. But they are not unsafe.
Sure, if you want to be working comfortable in the mountains, there is no way around a Lama or a B3.


The two lowest official mountain landing sites in Switzerland are at 1440/1450m (4760/4760 ft). There are actually only a handful below 2000m.

For the rating (MOU), at the prominent flight schools, you will need 50 approaches to this handful in R22, then 150 more approaches to the landing sites above 2000m in R44. And it will cost you an arm and a leg!

[[email protected]]

Crome Dome - he said 'could have' not 'could of' :) but the answer is pre-flight planning and observing DA limits if memory serves.

[Crome Dome]

So are you saying that this accident occured through lack of pre flight planning?

[lelebebbel]

Which law firm do you work for?

[griffothefog]

Where we are operating, a mountain is considered anything over 5000'. :eek:

And yes, we have lots of fun.... :ok:

Fly safe over the bumps UK boy's. :E

[Crome Dome]

I dont work for a law firm...... I am the daughter of the pilot.... Just want to know what really happened to my dad!!!!!

[MightyGem]

Apologies. There was also a pax in the back.

I am the daughter of the pilot
Ahh. Difficult to know how to answer that one.

[griffothefog]

Public forums.... careful what you wish for. :{

[Crome Dome]

Quote There was also a pax in the back

I am really sorry but what does that mean???

[MartinCh]

pax = passenger/s
'in the back' = cabin

reason for asking about lawyers = dead/hurt passengers + negligence = $$$ case

[MightyGem]

Quote There was also a pax in the back

I am really sorry but what does that mean???
Pax equals passenger. I was apologising for omitting him from my first post.

[SilsoeSid]

ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 59978 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=59978)

Narrative:
Crashed in the Pyrénées mountains after suffering turbulence at high altitude.


However, be careful of what you wish for, the 'other site' can get very detailed and personal !!!

http://www.aerosteles.net/66/steleocadie-lynx/monu_sailgs_gb_1.jpg

[spencer17]

@griffothefog regarding the Bumbs her in the UK :=
From my own experience. I did my mountain training in Saillagouse (1974), flew Pax jobs and external load in the German-, Austrian- and Swiss Alps.
Now I'm in Scotland and do the same work in the UK.
The Scottish Bumps, the Lake District or Snowdonia are, in certain weather conditions, more difficult to fly then the Alps.
And believe me, I know what I'm talking about.:}

[Crome Dome]

Quote : However, be careful of what you wish for, the 'other site' can get very detailed and personal !!!

I dont think anything can be worse than what i already think.... worrying that my dad suffered.... so really anything that anyone tells me is a help.
Its 25years of wondering

[alouette]

I am looking for a mountain flying reference booklet. Does somebody out there have an electronic copy which contains graphics, etc...? Any help is appreciated!!!! Thanks:ok:

[Peter PanPan]

Trying to list all schools where a Mountain course can be taken within the EU, recently came across a FAQ doc concerning the new european rules for pilot licensing published by the UK CAA:

The EU regulations introduce a Mountain Rating, to replace the national rating that already exists in Switzerland and elsewhere. This will be granted on completion of an approved course on taking off and landing in mountainous regions. The effect of this in the future will be that pilots will not be able to take-off or land in mountainous areas with EASA aircraft unless they have a mountain rating.

If any of you wouldn't mind sharing their experience on this topic.

[zlocko2002]

I am sure that its just a meter of time when EASA will establish special ratings for landing at square and another one for round helipads
:}

[Vertical Freedom]

We are considering starting Mountain Flying Training Courses in AS350B3+, AS350B2 & B206BIII here in Nepal. :D

The course would cover extensive Mountain flying conditions, high DA, Mountain Navigation, Heli-pad assessment, limited power operations, Mountain pre-flight preparation & survival, Rescue, poor Visibility river/road/trekking route Navigation, Meteorology etc. etc.

Landings would be conducted up 20,000' in B3, 18,000' in B2 & 17,000' in B206BIII. We expect the course would run for approx. 5-7 days, weather depending?

No point in getting too involved unless we know there are the numbers out there, and if there are enough then we can let you all know via a PPRuNe advert :ok: So please respond here or via PM me your interest ;)
http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h338/rotors99/P1050059-1.jpg

Thank You

VF

[skadi]

The EU regulations introduce a Mountain Rating, to replace the national rating that already exists in Switzerland and elsewhere. This will be granted on completion of an approved course on taking off and landing in mountainous regions. The effect of this in the future will be that pilots will not be able to take-off or land in mountainous areas with EASA aircraft unless they have a mountain rating.

Mountain rating above which altitude? :}

skadi

[JAA/FAA Pilot]

If they will adapt the Swiss rules, mountain terrain will start at 1100m/M.

[skadi]

If they will adapt the Swiss rules, mountain terrain will start at 1100m/M.

Hopefully not, that would reqire the rating for the Blackwood Forest, Bavarian Forest and even for the highest summit in the Harz Mountains....:ugh::ugh::ugh:

skadi

[hueyracer]

German Authorities do not have ANY clue at the moment, how all this (mountain flying, maintenance test pilot etc.) will work in the future....

At the moment, they are refusing to accept any documents of proof (e.g. certificates about mountain flying-more than 1000 hours), because it "is not becoming applicable before 2015".....

In the same sentence, they told me that even then they will only accept "up to date"-certificates from (then) certified flight schools with certified instructors (where do these instructors get their ratings from?)....

I like the idea about the ratings for a round helipad, and another for a square one-because that is exactly what we are heading for.......

Btw: Did anyone find anything about spraying in EASA?

[zlocko2002]

probably that one will need IFR(H) and Spraying Rating :} which will be type related, so when you get Spraying Rating on AS350, you will have to do another one for Bell206

Normally there will be ME SR if one wants to do it in twin engine helicopter
:O

In next decade they will introduce Other Than White Helicopter Rating OTWHR for those that want to fly helicopters painted blue, red or any other color
:E


I'm thinking to get FAA licences and to forget stupid EU

[Not Nightowl]

To Flying Lawyer, you mean the valleys must be really low! ;)

[HeliStudent]

In this (http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/flickr-2674622143-hd/Japan/Geographical_Geophysical_Division/Places_of_Scenic_Beauty_Special_Historic_Sites_and_Special_N atural_Monuments/Special_Natural_Monuments/Mountainsand_Volcanoes_/Mount_Fuji_Views_of_Mount_Fuji/Helicopter_flies_by_Mt._Fuji.jpg) photo there is a cloud to the right of the mountain. Does this mean that the leeward side of the mountain is the side nearest the cloud and if so am I correct to say that this is the side to avoid flying through?

[SASless]

If they will adapt the Swiss rules, mountain terrain will start at 1100m/M.


Uh Oh! What about those places that don't have any terrain lower than 1100 M....and are flat as a Billiard Table? Say like East of Denver.....until you get almost to St. Louis for instance.


Griffo.....


believe me, I know what I'm talking about.


We believe you even when we and you don't know what you are talking about!

[407 too]

HeliStudent, yes, you are correct. It is a Lenticular cloud, evidence of a strong wind. If you need to go in that direction, stay on the upwind side of the mountain. The helicopter in the photo is flying into the wind, or nearly so

[LOZZ]

Some images from last weekend's mountain appreciation flying which had many highlights; one of our aircraft being targeted by two F14s (we think) being one, the other seeing one of the RAF Valley Sea Kings out and about on Monday, and having to do a swift start up to clear the fuel bay at Caernarfon as they had called for fuel (then cancelled as got called to another job I believe). On the way home after some pinnacle approaches and landings, conducted a recce of Lake Vyrnwy, interesting approach required given the 300 wind at the time. Also enjoyed landing at Portmeirion (once the sheep were cleared), £100 for two R22s & one R44; they sent a driver to pick us from the field and included free admission to the village where we sat and had tea in front of the hotel. Pretty good value we thought for seven of us.

All in all learnt a great deal not possible in the relatively benign south of England which I am accustomed to. Big thank you to the friendly and helpful people of Kemble, Welshpool and Caernarfon. Looking forward to getting back up that way sometime soon.

Helicopter Mountain Flying in Snowdonia, Wales. - a set on Flickr (http://flic.kr/s/aHsjHtbv24)

Lozz.

[AlfonsoBonzo]

Does anyone know what EASA will do next week regarding the Mountain Rating? The UK CAA website says "The rating will not be mandatory until 8th April 2015".


Are we going to find out next Thurday what the definition of mountainous terrain will be and what training will be required or can somone tell me already now?