R44 Down on Melbourne Beach [Archive]

John Eacott

15th Feb 2006, 10:27

Before you all get carried away, all that I can report ATM is that the machine made a precautionary landing following a LTE which involved a loss of height of about 1600 - 1700 feet. The pilot made the right decision to land, and a check was made of the aircraft by a LAME, who was unsure of tolerances on the blade surfaces.

Following a road recovery (what would you have done, Graeme?) the helicopter has been given a clean bill of health, and was only on the ground for a day and a half, awaiting confirmation from Robinson Helicopters. It was flown Tuesday, the incident was on Sunday. The ripples on the blades are normal, and well within the manufacturer's tolerances: we would rather have checked and been safe, than taken a chance and been sorry.

There are quite a few pilots around who have encountered LTE, and all have told me that it is sudden and viscious: those who have recovered owe a lot to luck and skill, regardless of their experience level :ok:

whirlyhen

15th Feb 2006, 10:39

Absolutely brilliant decision making jaffa driver - LTE at low altitude takes some calm rational inputs - well done! Badbreath, take a look at FAA statistics regarding gender fatalities "Sir".

petitfromage

15th Feb 2006, 16:15

There are many reasons for LTE (and lets be honest, we are still learning lessons from LTE incidents) but thats not the crux of my post.

WELL DONE to the pilot involved. The precautionary landing was 110% the correct decision....when in doubt, there is no doubt etc etc

Too many pilots in an attempt to save face, continue on, or fly home....often in an attempt disguise the incident. Sometimes endangering dozens of innocent people in the process.

Congrats to this pilot for a sensible and mature approach esp given the uncertain and dramatic nature of the LTE incident.

badbreath

15th Feb 2006, 23:31

Typical female remark ,your all sisters living in differant houses..

Tickle

16th Feb 2006, 01:05

Hi everyone,

This reminds me of an incident that occured in the late 1980's or maybe 1990 where I was the passenger. I was in a Kestrel Aviation Kawasaki KH4 and something happened - a big bang - and we suddenly autorotated into the Alexander Gardens next to the Yarra River in Melbourne.

I believe the pilot was a man by the name of Richard Gay or Richard Guay. I was told he moved on to fly for Channel 10 and he had flown in Vietnam.

Does anyone know the cause of that accident and if anyone knows Richard or what happened to him?

I remember being very excited when the pilot told us the police Dauphin may take us back to the World Trade Centre helipad, but they didn't, just flew off after a good look.

Any help appreciated!

Thanks,

Tickle.

Nigel Osborn

16th Feb 2006, 01:10

Whirlyhen
I'm surprised you think 1600-1700 ft (as stated by JE) is low level. Surely if you suffer from either LTE or LTA at that height or higher, you have plenty of time to recover, so there should be no need for a precautionary landing.
If on the other hand, there was a tail rotor malfunction, you would expect any pilot, male or female, to get it down quickly where of course it would then be easier to fix the problem.

Bevan666

16th Feb 2006, 01:25

Nigel, you say

I'm surprised you think 1600-1700 ft (as stated by JE) is low level. Surely if you suffer from either LTE or LTA at that height or higher, you have plenty of time to recover, so there should be no need for a precautionary landing.

I think you'll find JE said

Before you all get carried away, all that I can report ATM is that the machine made a precautionary landing following a LTE which involved a loss of height of about 1600 - 1700 feet. The pilot made the right decision to land, and a check was made of the aircraft by a LAME, who was unsure of tolerances on the blade surfaces.

I think you'll find it was a loss of 1600-1700 ft and not AT 1600-1700ft. Given the height they were banner towing at that day, I am sure the recovery was damn close to sea level.

Well done.

Bevan..

Nigel Osborn

16th Feb 2006, 01:29

Bevan
How can you lose 1600-1700 ft in height if you are low level???

PPRUNE FAN#1

16th Feb 2006, 01:47

Err...1600-1700 foot fall and then a precautionary? 1600-1700 with a banner underneath? "LTE" with a banner underneath?? Excuse me whilst I emit an incredulous "WTF!?" Just how high was she when this whole ordeal began?

"Hand me the binoculars, Martha, I think that little heliocopter has something hanging down underneath it."
"Oh, don't be silly dear, that's just the space shuttle on re-entry. Or maybe an asteroid."

Methinks there's more to this story than is being told. There usually is. I mean, for instance...bear with me now...just how does a person "sneak up" behind the Vice President of the United States when he is hunting quail? I would assume that since quail are ground birds, everyone was being super quiet. But Cheney "didn't hear" him coming? C'mon... When I heard that "story," the old PPRuNe Fan had to shake his head in disbelief and go "WTF!? They expect us to believe that crap?"

Now I will neither castigate or congratulate this pilot. Whatever happened...and it's likely that only she knows (and if she's smart she'll feign complete loss of memory of the event)...something got way out of hand. "LTE" only happens when the airspeed is quite low. Not what you'd want to have with a banner hanging from the hook. "1600-1700" is quite high for a banner (and remember, she probably had to be higher than that). So "something" went haywire. She probably (wisely) decided to sit down, take a deep breath, regroup and pull seat cushion material from her behind.

But congratulating her on her expert judgement and skill is kind of like saying, "Gee Senator Kennedy, I didn't know you were such a great swimmer! Can I help you up out of the water, sir?" Or, in a more timely vein (since I don't want you groovy guys and groovy girls to think the PPRuNe Fan is stuck in the 1960's), "Got one! Gee Mister Cheney, wow, nice shooting!"

John Eacott

16th Feb 2006, 02:22

Err...1600-1700 foot fall and then a precautionary? 1600-1700 with a banner underneath? "LTE" with a banner underneath?? Excuse me whilst I emit an incredulous "WTF!?" Just how high was she when this whole ordeal began?
(edit to remove more useless garbage)

Whatever you're smoking, I suggest that you reduce the dose. LTE whilst filming another helicopter towing a banner (from a kilometre away) has morphed into one of your typical diatribes, bearing little or no resemblance to what everyone else is talking about.

And Nigel, I haven't encountered LTE/LTA, but I'm assured that it can take a long drop to recover. I firmly support the pilot's decision to make a precautionary landing, and inspect the machine before further flight.

vpaw pilot

16th Feb 2006, 02:25

Beat me to it John...

moosp

16th Feb 2006, 10:44

KMS, because that is what real professionals do in this industry when anything even remotely connected to the operation of a helicopter makes them feel that they want to check something out. Nothing to do with what is required, or what is mandated, or what pprune Monday Quarterbacks might suggest. At the stage that it was removed from the beach there was, and as far as I am aware still is, only annecdotal evidence of that much abused acronym, LTE.

Most of the experienced pilots and investigators here would think is perfectly normal to truck a machine back to a proximate base after a precautionary landing. That is all part of risk management in the industry. Costs a bit more, but as the Old Saw says, if you think safety is expensive, try an accident.

TiPwEiGhT

16th Feb 2006, 11:04

Probably put the shivers up the pilot, best thing to do is to land and get it out of your mind before carrying on with the reminder of the flight.

Nobody can fault the pilot for wanting to get the aircraft checked out, good decision IMHO.

TiP:ok:

PPRUNE FAN#1

16th Feb 2006, 13:08

John Eacott:Whatever you're smoking, I suggest that you reduce the dose. LTE whilst filming another helicopter towing a banner (from a kilometre away) has morphed into one of your typical diatribes, bearing little or no resemblance to what everyone else is talking about.Shut up, John. Just shut up. Evidently I wasn't the only one who understood that the LTE ship was towing the banner. You probably know the girl and feel some misplaced sense of responsibility to come to her defense. It reeks of reverse-toadyism. Probably one of these low-time wonders you keep pumping out while telling us what great pilots they are.

I'm still confused as to how an R-44, hitherto unknown to be afflicted with the dreaded LTE, could get into it this time. But hey, there's a first time for everything:rolleyes: Lucky she wasn't at 1000'.

Ask her about that, will you? Ask her how her helicopter managed a 1700' free-fall whilst she was doing...what?...at the controls. Then maybe go over the EP for LTE/LTA with her.

Flingwing207

16th Feb 2006, 15:22

If you are into generalities, then you can say that anytime a helicopter does something unexpected or uncommanded, barring a mechanical failure, it is pilot error. An error being any time there is a deviation from optimum. An altitude deviation is an error, a 1700' altitude deviation is a larger error.

It would seem impossible to lose yaw control in an R44 as long as you have full RRPM, but it happens. Pilot error? Sure, because what else could it be. I watched a hovering Raven II get spun 270 degrees by LLWS - in this case it was the pilot's judgement error for being in the air just as the gust front arrived (he was trying to get the ship back to the hangar before the storm arrived). Luckily, he reacted properly to the situation his initial error caused, and no injury or damage done.

Most of my flying is a series of corrected errors - the trick is notice the errors when they are tiny, and correct them rapidly (preferably before they become noticable to anyone else).
So absolutely, if this R44 didn't experience mechanical difficulty (and apparently it didn't), then the pilot made a mistake of judgement, action, or reaction - most likely all three. Exprience is a tough tutor. Test first, lesson after.

headsethair

16th Feb 2006, 17:08

Poor piloting techniques almost kills 4

3. It is an ENG. Brand new.

Say again s l o w l y

16th Feb 2006, 21:31

For crying out loud.........

Fact one: A pilot (gender irrelevant) had a problem and decided to put the thing down in one piece. No injuries, no deaths, no damage.

Fact two: Only the people who were in it know exactly what happened, so cut the barrack room bullsh*t, especially you PPF#1, you numpty.

As for the comment about poor piloting technique, do me a favour. To me it shows excellent presence of mind. There was an unknown problem which caused altitude loss, so the PIC puts it down safely. Without more facts, no judgement can be made at all. Especially by a bunch of keyboard "experts."

Flingwing207

17th Feb 2006, 02:30

An error doesn't imply poor technique - the best in the world make errors. Observing and commenting on an error is not an indictment (in fact it is about 50% on an instructor's job). However, if there was no mechanical problem with the aircraft, and no freak wind condition, then there was at least one error made that caused such an extreme deviation in flight.

Could it have happened to me? Absolutely. Maybe I've been close to worse many times, and blissfully unaware (I know of one time when I definitely was).

Like I said earlier, making a mistake isn't desirable, but they happen every day. Let's be glad we have the ability to recover from them. :ouch:

Thomas coupling

17th Feb 2006, 18:13

I'm not usually the first to defend any Robinson product myself, best left to the poor folk who can't afford proper helicopters (:E ), but:

I'd be very very careful calling this LTE missy. Frank's going to crawl over this to ensure his little baby doesn't have any further "design flaws".

IF she insists on some kind of TR control departure....I'd start with LTA and work from there.
If you ask me - her mobile fone just went off:suspect:

helicopter-redeye

17th Feb 2006, 20:11

Was it vortex ring ??? ???

Thomas coupling

17th Feb 2006, 21:17

good point - well phrased!

Bronx

18th Feb 2006, 16:10

Poor old TC. :)
I guess this thread posed him a dilema. Kick Robinsons or kick the pilot? Yep, his kick other pilots boot won the day. No point in breaking that run.

Which rock did Badbreath crawl out from under? Just thank the Lord he aint a pro pilot.

And no thread would be complete without the world's greatest living helicopter expert shooting his mouth off.
"Poor piloting techniques almost kills 4"?
So he's only been a CPL for a year and he still aint got his first job as a pilot but, hey, KMS is so good he can tell from England what happened in Australia.

PpruneFan#1
I'm a fan of your posts. I enjoy reading them even when I don't agree with you because you make me think, but you jumped in too quick this time. Nobody said the helo was banner towing except you. Its a real pity you took your mistake out on Eacott.

The pilot did 100% the right thing landing. Good on her. :ok:

Thomas coupling

18th Feb 2006, 17:36

And he's from New York as well - don't even speak english there:rolleyes:

PPRUNE FAN#1

18th Feb 2006, 19:41

Bronx:I'm a fan of your posts. I enjoy reading them even when I don't agree with you because you make me think, but you jumped in too quick this time. Nobody said the helo was banner towing except you. Its a real pity you took your mistake out on Eacott.So sue me. See if I care. Let me check...nope!

Fact is, no matter what she was doing, she managed to get her little chopper (I dare not call it a proper helicopter) going 'round and 'round and 'round whilst dropping 1600 feet or so...after which she made an "absolutely brilliant" (whirly-something), "110% correct" (petitfromage) decision to set the ship down. I say, astounding display of airwomanship, eh what!

The larger issue is why a helicopter landing on the beach makes even makes the news. This is a non-story. "Yeah, we landed. Uhh, the cameraman had to take a leak. Guess I shouldn't have called the mayday. Sorry!" That's what I would have said, and left it at that. It's sad, but I guess since 9/11, every time something farts in the air it's "ANOTHER NEAR AIR-DISASTER!!! OH MY GOD!! YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!!! FILM AT ELEVEN!!!!" I'm surprised the local t.v. station didn't break-in to regularly shedduled programming with audio of the mayday.

Reporter: "And in this update to the near-horrific almost-an-emergency that we reported to you two weeks ago about that helicopter that landed on that beach...where, ahh, nothing happened...we have now learned of the reaction of other helicopter pilots to this incident! Posts on an internet discussion board seem to indicate..."

helicopter-redeye

18th Feb 2006, 21:29

Still think it was vortex ring ... (even simulated the same thing today with simulated cameraperson saying 'fly slow/ left/ descend' etc. Result = unsimulated vortex ring with no prior warning shudder or shake).

NB no aminals or helicopters were hurt in this experiment, which was carried out under supervision at safe altitude. E&OE

h-r;)

Bronx

18th Feb 2006, 22:13

kissmysquirrel
It’s real considerate of you to send me a PM as well but I thought it would be kinda selfish not to share it with the guys.
Yanks always know best, or so they think.
You know jack ****!! You don't know me. You don't know how long i've been flying or what I do for a living right now so go and give yourself an enema to help clear yourself of the **** you talk.
See Kiss, TC likes to be contentious and he comes out with his Brits Know Best garbage but you can tell he's an experienced professional pilot from his posts. Same goes for PF1, he's ornery and he tells it like he sees it whatever but you can tell he’s been round the block a few times. That’s the big difference between them and you. Their both experienced professional pilots and you're not. We've all been there so don't be shy.
You have no idea about me at all so you can't really comment.
Now then Kiss, would you care to place a little wager on that?
How about loser pays $100 to the helicopter charity the British pilot set up in memory of his son who was killed in the H269? We could ask him to post confirming the loser paid up.
Now what did you say about the R44 pilot? She was "Quick to dive on here before but not so sure now." Well, you were quick to dive in and tell me I have no idea about you, are you so sure now? Hell, if your sure let's make it loser pays $200 to the charity.
Now what else did you say about her? "The PIC was quick to come on and make an earlier comment so come on now, reply and put us all out of our misery with the truth." Come on now Kiss, tell me if you'll take the wager and put us all out of our misery with the truth. Tell you what, so long as you give your word of honor you’ll play straight, I’ll let YOU decide if it's true I have no idea about you. I can't say fairer than that.
Well, I’ve thrown my gontlet down as they say in those wonderful old English movies. Are you gonna pick it up?
Hell, we could make $200 for a good cause and have some fun. And we get to find out whose the real Richard Cranium around here. :)

Bronx

If you'd prefer to give it a try for a small sum first - $50 says I can tell you your initials. It's for charity. Wanna give it a try?

(One very short sentence deleted which doesn't change the sense of the post.)
Heliport )

blave

19th Feb 2006, 04:53

I'm not quite sure what to think about this thread - practically everyone and everything (that Robinson makes anyway) has been bashed.
Try using my own axiom (which I have violated more than once, I must admit) of only saying what you'd say Face To Face with your audience, two feet away. The keyboard makes a mighty shield.
Dave Blevins

Heliport

19th Feb 2006, 09:22

kissmysquirrel

The last thing I want to do is deprive a worthy cause of $200 but, before you decide whether to take the bet, you might want to bear in mind what you've posted in the past, not just in this forum. The Professional Pilot Training/Ground studies forum, for example. ;)

Maybe winding your neck in and making a small donation (amount undisclosed) to the scholarship fund would be an honourable compromise?

Dennis Kenyon Helicopter Flying Scholarship (http://www.easyk.co.uk/kenyon/page4alt.htm)

Heliport

headsethair

19th Feb 2006, 11:54

Bronx: Very funny. You have humour - or is that humor ? Check sp. for gauntlet. And stop watching those awful old English B&W movies. Consider instead that television, the internet and iPods were all invented by Brits. The Dyson vacuum cleaner has led to the collapse of Hoover and most of the software that drives your mobile phones derives from a UK source. Your President will soon be flying around in a helicopter built by a UK/Europe consortium, our car designers are saving the ass of the US motor industry, and some of the biggest shows on US tv are lock, stock and barrel UK productions. We just get on with it quietly - and we're not all like PPF.

KMS PPF: Zip it. You've lost.

TC: those old habits die hard - do you have to refer to the pilot as "missy" ? You have this tendency to make the world believe that the UK male is a mysoginistic old bar-steward.....bit like some of the old B&W movie characters that have infected Bronx's mind. I maybe wrong - but do you have a battered old leather flying jacket, Ray Bans, black Levis that tuck into your motorcycle boots and a BSA Bantam strapped to your bum when you're not flying ? It's just the imagery projected by some of your posts.

Ah. Yes. The original post........My understanding is that there is a video around from the onboard recorder which has the soundtrack of the camera operator and clear pictures from the main camera throughout the entire incident.

The gyros fight hard to keep up with the helicopter movements. Presumably this videotape will be part of the investigation - although quite why an investigation is needed because a heli landed on a beach without damage or injury, I don't know.

Now - I think I'll sit down and watch Ice Cold in Alex this afternoon - trying to guess which character passed DNA to TC.

TheFlyingSquirrel

19th Feb 2006, 12:54

Aint proon just great ??:) :ok: :ok:

I do love a verbal punch up !

IntheTin

19th Feb 2006, 15:14

TFS put it just right.

Great entertaining thread. Well worth following.:ok:

helicopter-redeye

19th Feb 2006, 16:28

... and then Holmes observed sagely "there is something amiss 'ere Watson owld fellow. Not two weeks ago Kiss My Squirrel had in excess of 666 posts on Prune, now he is now to 30. Could there be an imposter in our midst?"

"Great heavens Holmes, you could be on to something" said Watson

:confused:

Heliport

19th Feb 2006, 18:28

“Drat!” said Watson. “I thought you were onto something there Holmes, but since young Daniel introduced this new-fangled ‘software’ as he calls it, I see the post counts are no longer reliable.”
“You see, Watson” said Holmes. ”You see, but you do not observe.”
"Quite so, I'm afraid" admitted Watson, "but the fact is that fellow who resorts to dreadful language when anyone dares to challenge him does not only have 30 posts."
"We can only pity that he lacks the vocabulary to express himself in a civilised manner" said Holmes, "but we won't concern ourselves with that misfortune now or he may delete his most recent post. You have arrived at an opportune moment to engage in some observation."
"What do you imagine has occurred?", asked Watson
"I don't imagine, Doctor. I deduce from data. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has sufficient data. I leave that to the usual suspects", said Holmes, little knowing his expression would be used by the makers of moving pictures in the next century. "We shall observe and deduce."

helicopter-redeye

19th Feb 2006, 18:38

"...AND his location has changed. And WHY would a software upgrade three weeks ago change the posting numbers on a Friday night??" said Harry. "It must be Voldemort changing the thoughts of Bill Gates"

"Don't be daft" said Ron.

"Methinks der iz two of them wiv similar monikers .... " said Hermione reaching for another glass of butterbeer.

Aside, to camera "(and I still think it was vortex ring)" said Redeye

Heliport

19th Feb 2006, 20:42

"Is it possible that fellow with a red eye could be correct?" asked Watson, as they left their Club.
"No, it is not" said Holmes, "but loyalty to friends is admirable, do you not agree?"
"I do indeed" said Watson. "I noticed they both hail from the North East of England and were training to be professional rotary flying machine drivers at a similar time."
"Damn fool way of trying to make a living, if you ask me", said Holmes. "It costs new drivers an enormous sum to be qualified because of all the rules made by the bureaucrats and, even if they can find employment, it's often not well remunerated."
"Mr Coupling says all the rules make Britain the leader of the entire world in this aviation pursuit", said Watson.
"Yes, he does" said Holmes, reflecting, but without further comment.
"If anything goes wrong, journalists are very quick to blame the driver", observed Watson.
"If only it was just journalists," sighed Holmes.

"Still, enough observing for me today. I'll leave others to do so in their own way for the moment. Ah, here comes a carriage. Cabbie! What was it that squirrel-kisser fellow called the American? A 'tosser'. I'll enquire of the driver what it means. They know that sort of thing."
"Baker Street, if you please, my good man. Goodnight, Watson."

Bronx

20th Feb 2006, 13:47

Kiss
Yeh me too, but I won't bother to take it further. Bronx is obviously a complete tosser and if he knows who I am, then get on the phone and we'll have a chat. My initials? MG! Bring it on fat boy, he he.
As for worthy causes? Give me a ******* break please! What? Free flying to someone? I was given **** all!!
I never said I know who you are, I said I know what you are.
You call me what you want if it makes you feel better but language like that don’t look good on a professional forum.
So you won't “bother” to take the wager? Well I guess that’s a big surprise to everyone. ;) You taunted the R44 pilot to come back and defend herself but when you’re challenged you ain’t so brave.
You had 704 posts when I posted on Saturday and your life story was there, now you got 89, Funny how the posts showing you build hours as a part-time FI in Newcastle on Tine when your not at sea working in the engine room on BP tankers and how you’re still trying to get your first full time job as a pilot are gone. I bet nobody could guess who took them off or why. :rolleyes:
I wish you good luck finding a job as a pilot, it aint easy, but if you get that North Sea job you been trying to get you should change your attitude because experienced pros will flush out BS real quick.
Pride goes before a fall. Remember that before you shoot your mouth off about another pilot who has some incident. Next time it could be you and it aint nice if people who weren’t there start saying pilot error. You could learn a lot from an experienced pro with as many hours as John Eacot, you never see him shooting his mouth off about other pilots. Hey I forgot, you don’t think thousands of hours experience means anything or has that post gone now.
Have you learnt anything? I hope so for your sake but I wouldn’t wager a cent on it.

Thomas coupling

20th Feb 2006, 16:46

:ugh:

If we were all in a bar right now, Bronx, and redeye would be sniping at KMS because his underpants were showing, Headsethair and myself would be putting the world to rights and Heliport would be digging Bronx in the ribs to go buy a round.;)

gadgetguru

21st Feb 2006, 05:49

most operations manuals are very clear on a pilots conduct with the media
"no comment" & refer them to the chief pilot/head office for any official comment

said pilot most likely has entered the forum to immediately eliminate any speculation & inform her peers as to the nuts & bolts, fairly generous on her part.

but being that the media vermin that troll through here awaiting for anything to smite the unwary pilot just to get a headline, was most likely advised (i assume) to make no further comment, particularly on a public forum, which is not ill advise.

Having seen said pilot fly at close hand, she is as smooth and professional as I could hope to be & I'd wander back under her disc area any day of the week. considering the volume of local pilots to pick from, it is no mean feat to secure one of the few flying jobs particularly over one of the most densley populated cities in Australia, above all her male counterparts - she can obviously do the job as well or better than many.

The fact that she has the confidence & affirmation of her chief pilot should be enough to anyone who questions her actions, so why argue.

I have been watching with envy the jaffa flying past our office floors windows every other day of the week. I often take note of where it is headed & trying to work out what is going on today, but most of all wishing that i was up there instead. but never have I seen any action which i would question in regards to safety.

but I watched in much dismay as this thread which should have merely been a discussion on a prudent pilots action turn into a pissing contest.

Diatryma

23rd Feb 2006, 09:38

GG your loyalty and common sense is to be admired. It stand out in contrast to some of the other posts on this forum. :ok:
Of course you will agree that this pilot is only human, and subject to loss of SA like anyone else.
As all PP's would probably agree it is critical to be aware of airspeed before turning downwind. Could result in LTE otherwise. A good job to recover from this - especially if vortex ring state is also encountered on way south. Very good head on her shoulders this young lady.
My hat off to her.
Di :)

LCT

26th Feb 2006, 10:50

Hi everyone,

This reminds me of an incident that occured in the late 1980's or maybe 1990 where I was the passenger. I was in a Kestrel Aviation Kawasaki KH4 and something happened - a big bang - and we suddenly autorotated into the Alexander Gardens next to the Yarra River in Melbourne.

I believe the pilot was a man by the name of Richard Gay or Richard Guay. I was told he moved on to fly for Channel 10 and he had flown in Vietnam.

Does anyone know the cause of that accident and if anyone knows Richard or what happened to him?

I remember being very excited when the pilot told us the police Dauphin may take us back to the World Trade Centre helipad, but they didn't, just :ok:flew off after a good look.

Any help appreciated!

Thanks,

Tickle.
HI Tickle, you found me thanks to a mate who read your storey. You can contact me on [email protected]. :ok:

biffed

2nd Mar 2006, 20:50

down wind ,low speed ,descending,vortex ring then the wrong recovery action hence the big loss of height,

topendtorque

3rd Mar 2006, 07:10

the old standard is fifty hours isn't it, certainly went close on this thread, --for hot air, and --- pissing. a school i went to once used to have the a new boy pissing contest, boy could those mothers squirt after fifty hours!

seriously, for the femme fatale, if in doubt push it out, your hands and feet i mean, unless you're french they would use the left foot. try it, it gives clean air in a flash.

Semi Rigid

4th Mar 2006, 04:07

10 bones on the state. the vr state that is.
Having viewed the video Jaffa you sure r one lucky sum-bee-atch.

topendtorque

4th Mar 2006, 05:39

pray don't keep us in the dark without a landing light

--video-- ??????????????? with sound?????????? so's we can tell the rpm without having to look at the blessed dial.

InducedDrag

30th Oct 2007, 21:02

I remember a while back there was a thread of a R44 news chopper where the pilot ended up setting down on a beach after encountering what she thought was LTE. There was a video of incident from the onboard camera.

I have searched high and low and I cant find it. Has anyone seen it?

Thanks

VeeAny

30th Oct 2007, 21:38

Would it be this one (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/videos/playonevideo.asp?videokey=1661) ?

InducedDrag

30th Oct 2007, 21:40

SUPER BIG THANKS!!!!...... I spent over an hour trying to find it.

Thanks again!!!

manfromuncle

30th Oct 2007, 21:50

Is this really LTE? Is that the lo-rpm horn on?

Bravo73

30th Oct 2007, 22:30

Here's the youtube link to the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2qPA_gniL8

And the original thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210877

scooter boy

30th Oct 2007, 23:45

General conclusion at the time by the pundits was vortex ring, which looks possible.
Lo rotor horn blaring away in the background too, perhaps the collective was being gripped very tightly by a panicky hand and the governor overridden? (only know that cos I've done it myself)

Seemed to wear off pretty quick thankfully.

SB

Spunk

31st Oct 2007, 09:42

Well, I guess it`s time to drop my trousers.

Being a young and unexperienced pilot right out of school I was sent out on a photo flight in a H300. The photographer, to say it in plain English, was an arrogant a*******, trying to push me beyond the limits at all time ("The last pilot I flew with, was able to do it.")
Not having enough guts to simply say "NO" I started to hover out of ground effect with a tail wind component. When realizing that I was about to run out of pedal I figured that it was about time to gain some forward speed and reduce some power. Thinking of that it was already too late. The aircraft started to spin to the right like hell. As the initial brain signals for more speed and less power were already on their way I instantly found myself in a nose down attitude with flat pitch. It took me 2 x 360° revolutions and @500 ft to regain positive control over the aircraft. Those trees were awfully close. It's nothing that I'm proud of in the first place but I've learnt my lesson.

I personally think that something similar to the above story is what happened to this fellow female aviator.
For some reason she lost tail rotor effectiveness/authority, realized that something went wrong, dropped the pitch (isn't that what most of us instinctly do when something goes wrong?) resulting in a loss of altitude, nosed the aircraft over to gain some forward speed (thus drop in RRPM) and luckily regained control.

Westerntribal

31st Oct 2007, 11:11

Here is the link to the ATSB report..
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/aair/aair200600738.aspx

rotorrookie

1st Nov 2007, 02:17

Spunk! Is possible that you had a drop in engine rpm and that triggerd the hole thing?
at least my experince with the 300 is that it has good tailrotor authority and as long as you keep the rpm on top of the green arc you are ok, and it will start to sink before you are out of left pedal.

Spunk

2nd Nov 2007, 11:01

Hi RR,

well, it's been 10 years now but in gerneral I've always been very concerned about my RRPM but who knows... being ignorant and having a total time of @200 hours :\

NickLappos

2nd Nov 2007, 11:34

It is amazing how the TR loses effectiveness when the main rotor rpm is down at the pilot's ankles. Note that all the excitement happens after that pesky horn sounds.

For all those who need to pull out the LTE stamp, including those accident investigators from the national agencies (who in 21 pages of mistaken analysis could not mention low rotor rpm):

It is a pretty good conclusion that when the rotor rpm is pulled down by the pilot in a classic "overpitching" situation that many items on the helo will lose effectiveness, not just the tail rotor.

Calling this LTE is like calling CFIT "loss of altitude effectiveness"

EN48

2nd Nov 2007, 12:02

Perhaps a dumb question, but while having decades of plank experience, I have only recently completed a PPL rating in an Enstrom 480B. I have a new 480B on order, and, in part, my purchase decison was influenced by the excellent safety record of the 480 in particular and Enstroms in general. The POH for the 480B states that the helicopter has been demonstrated to be easily controllable in winds to 40 kts. My research could find no accident reports for Enstroms for which LTE was a stated factor. A very high time commercial Enstrom pilot (and insurance accident investigator) friend states that he is unaware of any Enstrom LTE events, ever, due to the high tail rotor authority of the Enstrom design. He recently demonstrated to me running Nr down to 80% in wind conditions of 12G23 and maintained control easily while hovering downwind. While I know better than to assume that it could never happen, is the Enstrom design as immune to LTE as my current information would indicate?

Thanks for any informed opinions.

RB

K48

2nd Nov 2007, 12:54

For those of us who have never got ourselves in this mess this video is very educational.. I have a question. It's clear she was ticking all the boxes to induce this event... low AIS, wind from left, high hover at >1000kgAUW ( and gossiping ;)) But can someone tell me on initial occurence of the spin, had she put in the correct reactions what would be the recovery altitude /space required? 100-200ft? - if she had pushed forward and lowered collective immediately..?
Watching the video and noting the direction of the skids in the final dive for recovery it seems that the real recovery is initiated at circa 300ft. Prior to that there is a lot of up/down of collective (horn tells us that). It almost seems the initial reaction of the pilot was to pull up on the collective once the spin started which may have even accelerated the spin.... Surely a quick push forward and down with collective would have made a much quicker recovery possible?
And in what vertical distance?

johned0

2nd Nov 2007, 16:03

Nick,

I am not in any position to know what happened or to question your analysis of the situation but the heli clearly starts to spin a long time before the pesky horn sounds - as can be seen by the skid moving past the camera. I am assuming that the camera is gyro stabilized so lags the spinning of the platform.

Does this alter the analysis ?

Cheers,

John

NickLappos

3rd Nov 2007, 02:30

johno,

I believe the camera is rotating of its own, independent of the helo's rotation, otherwise the skids could not be seen translating across the screen. Note that the horn sounds as the helo starts to whip around, and when the horn stops, so does the helo.

tyl3r

3rd Nov 2007, 07:24

Can we hear the MR

thwup-thwup-thwup-thwup-thwup--thwup---thwup-----thwup------thwupp--------thwuppp---------thwuppp*---...

running quite nicely in sync with the horn? If so, it's very lucky that they didn't clap goodbye at around 24s and 28s, imo.

[*Apologies if this is not spelt correctly.]

johned0

3rd Nov 2007, 10:59

Sorry, Nick, I am pretty sure the horn goes off as the camera goes round, not the helo - i.e. the gyro on the camera can't keep up with the spinning of the helo. My reading is as follows (in this order) :

1/ Something starts to make the helo spin
2/ The camera continues to point in the same direction because it is stabilized
3/ The skid passed through the camera view
4/ After a second or so the horn goes off

John

NickLappos

3rd Nov 2007, 11:08

johhnedo,
I agree with you, the yaw started about 3 seconds prior to the horn. The real question then is what was he asking of the machine? With his entry into a high OGE hover, with wind, he might very well have exceeded the flight envelope by quite a bit. There also seems to be some incipient VRS, or at least a falling through with too little power for OGE. Not a classic LTE, in any case.

Thanks!

topendtorque

3rd Nov 2007, 12:02

what was he asking of the machine?

Nick,
I think that you are right on the button and I am sure plenty agree with you.

I know that you are an alert dude, and I have no problem with stepping forward with a couple of explanations.
So it’s with pleasure and some panache that I will point out to you that you missed the sibilant “S” in the above script!

That’s Ok we all run a bit of a root sometimes.

But I really enjoyed how you surmised that the RRPM may have been down at the pilots ankles, maybe that was not all that was down at the pilot’s “pesky” ankles??

As per my post on the previous thread, K48 is also right on the button, If in doubt push it out. To wit:- cyclic forward, collective down (and for rotors rotating in the direction that R44’s do) then right pedal in. It will take nary a second and fresh-beautiful-clean air will prevail over the whole rotor system. - Do with that what you wish – or were damn well trained for, it at all.

And for the record, NO, I do not believe that it was VRS.
tet

TiPwEiGhT

3rd Nov 2007, 12:22

Could the Low RPM horn have come on as a result of having full left boot in to stop the rotation. Am I right in thinking the machine was rotating to the right?
(and for rotors rotating in the direction that R44’s do) then right pedal in
Is it the case that if it rotated to the left then the aircraft was wind vaning itself and just got a bit over enthusiastic?
I am very interested in this case as most of my time in the R44 is spent in HOGE.

topendtorque

3rd Nov 2007, 13:02

Could the Low RPM horn have come on as a result of having full left boot in to stop the rotation.
Partly, I think you will find that the horn came on mostly because the collective was too high for the available engine power. Am I right in thinking the machine was rotating to the right?

Is it the case that if it rotated to the left then the aircraft was wind vaning itself and just got a bit over enthusiastic?

TW
I really think that your assumption of right rotation must be followed according to the ATSB report.

I suggest you dismiss your hypothesis in the second sentence.

The pilot more than likely had the LEFT pedal in to STOP the RIGHT ROTATION.

The pilot had only ever discussed (and that's speaks volumes for the lack of breadth of her training syllabus) the effects of LTE prior to this event according to the ATSB report.
- Not to mention discussing or training in LTA or VRS or any of the other baddies-. goddamn

The pilot may NOT have been aware that when the RRPM is very low as a result of a simple overpitch situation that the T/R may well run out of AUTHORITY, thus prompting a RIGHT YAW and an automatic reaction of MORE LEFT pedal IN.

Right pedal will unload, as will cyclic forward as will collective down. It's easy, pull your collective up at the hover until you are overpitching and try it.

At the end of the day little blame can really be apportioned a pilot who has unwittingly encountered a phenomina, which her previous training should have suited her for, had she been given it, in light of her tasking to be hovering at high AUW.

Once again, the responsibility for better training in these areas is required.
tet

manfromuncle

3rd Nov 2007, 14:03

LTE/LTA training is not in the JAA PPL syllabus.

But downwind quickstops are. Very Useful (not).

FairWeatherFlyer

3rd Nov 2007, 14:44

With a working enabled governor, can you get an R44 into low RRPM with pedal inputs? I'm assuming at least initially being within max continuous power limits.

bladewashout

3rd Nov 2007, 20:49

Does the rotation of the helicopter clockwise around the mast affect the RRPM measurement? I'm thinking about 550 RPM (for an R44?) at 102% would need 5% reduction to hit 97%, that's about 25 rpm drop, or once every 2 secs.

That R44 was rotating pretty quick - could that explain the horn going off at some stages of the problem, due to a relative measurement change?

I've heard before that LTE in a Jetranger can be exacerbated by the fuel governor sensing a lower RPM and reducing the fuel flow, but this may be a myth!

BW

XV666

3rd Nov 2007, 20:50

The pilot had only ever discussed (and that's speaks volumes for the lack of breadth of her training syllabus) the effects of LTE prior to this event according to the ATSB report.
- Not to mention discussing or training in LTA or VRS or any of the other baddies-. goddamn

The ATSB report says:

The pilot obtained a Private Pilot (Helicopter) Licence in the United Kingdom (UK) in 1996 and received 30 hours of flight training to upgrade to an Australian Commercial 7Pilot (Helicopter) Licence (CPL(H)) in 1999. The pilot did not recall loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE) being part of the training syllabus in the UK, but did recall LTE being discussed as part of the CPL(H) training in Australia. The pilot could not recall any further discussion of LTE since that training. That contrasted with the operator’s report of the recent conduct of a discussion with the pilot regarding LTE.

and:

The pilot expressed some knowledge of the recommended recovery techniques in response to LTE.

But where's this obsession arising here that she was OGE hovering? The report clearly states that she was in a slow orbit around a target banner towing helicopter, which she was filming: not in a hover!

While in a turn at low airspeed, and with a quartering tailwind, the helicopter began an uncommanded yaw to the right

and

The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) replay of the flight showed that at 1229, the pilot of the R44 was flying slow anticlockwise orbits at 2,000 ft above ground level over Williamstown, while the pilot of the B407 was tracking north at approximately 30 kts and 1,600 ft over Hobsons Bay (figure 1).

As the pilot of the R44 turned through south towards the south-east, the helicopter began an uncommanded right yaw

Listening to the video, the Nr would seem to be close to 80% before recovery was finally initiated: no wonder the camera operator is breathing a bit heavily on the audio :eek:

InducedDrag

4th Nov 2007, 02:39

The biggest problem with the pilot (besides she can't lower the collective) is she is overriding the governor! I dont think she overpitched.

I think she got spun around, and in her fright, put a death grip on the throttle. Then when she stomps in the pedal, and/or raised collective the gov can't increase power.

This is pretty evident to me because she is overriding it all the way down to the bottom. Even after she "recovers" and it flying along at the bottom, the horn goes off again. There is no way this could happen unless she was severely overpitching, (which I dont think is the case as she is flying along at the bottom)....or she I holding the grip so hard the gov cant roll the throttle up.

I have had several students do this. They get nervous and tense up on the throttle. For those used to flying turbines, the Robbie throttle continually moves by governor actuation. If you tense up on it, you will simply not allow the governor to work.

Just my .02...

Revolutionary

4th Nov 2007, 06:38

Oh my, are we on again about this simple mishap? I'm going out on a limb here but... don't these kinds of upsets happen each day all over the world when relatively inexperienced pilots get in slightly over their heads? More than once I almost let a helicopter get away from me when I had less than 1,000 hours and was learning the ropes. Didn't we all?

Of course, none of my screw-ups were quite as spectacular as this one, nor were any caught on tape. And they never were in a bright orange R44 in front of a crowd of curious beachgoers either, but c'mon... This poor pilot's one instance of questionable airmanship has now generated two PPRUNE threads, a popular video and (God help us all) an official inquiry from the Australian ATSB.

O.K., so we have established that it was not LTE. I would also like to add that the sky is blue and that the Pope is a Catholic. She was almost hovering at high G/W and tried to turn downwind, using a fair dollop of pedal, no doubt. Now she knows what happens when you do that and I bet she won't do it again. And shouldn't that be the end of it? If she's an otherwise smart and competent pilot -which I'm sure she is- she will have learned from her experience and moved on.

Can we close the peanut gallery here at PPRUNE and allow her to get on with her life?

johned0

4th Nov 2007, 08:40

I'll second the motion, Rev, :D :D

I hope nobody has a video camera on me if I ever f**k up.

John

NickLappos

4th Nov 2007, 11:05

heli,

You say she was not in an OGE hover, but that statement is wrong. She didn't INTEND to be in an OGE hover, but she "fell" into one, and the power and pedal requirements eluded her. The rest of the story has been called LTE, but it was much more insidious, and much more understandable for what it was - failure to maintain flying speed while doing donuts.

topendtorque

5th Nov 2007, 11:44

Heli
There seems to negligent conflict that she had discussed the issue with someone.

The pilot expressed some knowledge of the recommended recovery techniques in response to LTE.

However if you or ATSB think that the quote above implies that a pilot has the capacity to EFFECT recovery from a DISCUSSED procedure then you should think again.
Why has the training syllabus in two countries, here in this example, been found wanting?

But where's this obsession arising here that she was OGE hovering? The report clearly states that she was in a slow orbit around a target banner towing helicopter, which she was filming: not in a hover!

Perhaps you missed this:- ‘The photographer, who was also a licensed helicopter pilot, reported that the helicopter had almost approached a hover as it turned downwind’ (corroborated from the ground)

The wind was reported from the North West. At the most it seems that the wind MAY have been displaced by one cardinal point or less, Hardly a constant quartering tailwind.

As the helicopter approached a hover, relative to the witnesses on the ground, it would have been placed in a position where the relative airflow over the T/R was approaching the forecast wind. I.E. fifteen knots of fresh air from behind, hardly a condition for LTE.

The T/R with positive EFFECT and its full AUTHORITY flicked around as Nick has said while the pilot was manipulating the collective toward an over-pitch by simply pulling up and not watching the MAP.

This is where the pilot became disorientated, and the RRPM horn went off, and unfortunately applied many incorrect control inputs, and, and, to the point where it must have only been a hairsbreadth away from M/R blade stall. They were indeed lucky to survive.
Of course the other pilot would have been scared witless, I don’t blame him at all.

Unfortunately we see many pilots trained in governer equipped A/C who don't monitor MAP and their first indication that they have pulled more than allowed is when the horn goes off or the xmon temp starts to light up.

Revolutionary you should think again :- Now she knows what happens when you do that and I bet she won't do it again

Does she?
One of the elementary things a check pilot should do is to ambush pilots into exactly this type of scenario. They recover if they were taught the issue or either have the smarts to work it out from previous “discussion” or their own research or they don’t.
Then you simply explain and demonstrate and try again, fail the second time. Well that’s too bad.

If I was that pilot’s chief pilot I would have organised a check flight to see if indeed she has mastered the issue.

Despite earlier jocularity I still wouldn’t go too hard on the pilot, rather the systems that allowed her through these elementary lessons to this massive mistake should be checked, with the British CAA and our OZ CASA on the top of the list for criticism.

I mean be serious, she nearly killed them all.
tet

Revolutionary

5th Nov 2007, 12:10

Topendtorque, I don't think it's the role of any check pilot to 'ambush' pilots into any type of scenario. Ambush? Like pull into a hover, whip the nose downwind, pull on the collective until the helicopter falls through and starts spinning around and the horn comes on and then cross your arms and say "you've got it"? What the hell kind of checkride is that?

If you're a check pilot I bet you would only do that once. You know why? Because once you get back on the ground (assuming you're still alive) and have had a chance to change into some clean underwear, you will resolve to never, ever, do that again. And that's what this pilot did. It's called learning from your mistakes.

Sure, it would be good to go over some basics with your check pilot after an incident like this and then go out and practice some recovery from VRS techniques but certainly not in the manner you describe.

deeper

5th Nov 2007, 12:45

LTE, Rubbish,

TET, Rubbish,

She, being the pilot, was taken out for a short flight later and has not flown since.

She overpitched, ask the pilot sitting next to her, doing a job far beyond her experience. out over water, only reference a moving target, the other helicopter. Lost the plot.

topendtorque

5th Nov 2007, 18:15

Revolutionary
please let me explain better, I would never develop that scenario as you have described, good grief.

The check routine is simple, distract the pilot with idle chatter, while you get them to pull up to a predetermined height which you know will place them at almost zero airspeed, or better with a negative airspeed if it is to the downwind direction that you direct them. They usually will not anticipate early on that power and pedals will need CLOSE attention at that point.

Do it well away from the ground - and thus away from the close visual cues - keep talking and the pilot will, either stop listening and keep control when the machime starts to wave around or you grab it and ask why did you not keep it under control.

Very very simple, not terrifying but a bit disarming for them if they have never been into that situation before.

It should be mandated as part of "recovering from unusual attitudes or situations" prior to license issue, which is my point.

Had this pilot been through that she should never had made the mistake.

Deeper
pull your bloody head in, read the above.

It is extremely sad if the subject has not flown again simply because she developed a frightening situation only because of the prior lack of exposure to an incredibly simple routine which would have stopped immediately her entry into her situation.

It is all about anticipation and safety.

I do wish her well and hope that she may reconsider her decision and ask someone to show her the above simple routine.
tet

bladepitch

5th Nov 2007, 20:34

the day this happened i was out flying and heard the mayday call over the air.

i was working around other helicopters and using the numbers on the radio. the mayday call came out over the numbers! not on a monitored frequency. second it was a male voice screaming through the mic and only two bits of info were clear. that was MAYDAY 3 times. and in his words.

WERE GOING DOWN! , WERE GOIN IN HARD! MAY DAY 3 times

then the transmition stopped

the poor lass obviously had her hands full dealing with the situation to do any thing else.

i hear a month later i heard that she flew once more then left the industrie and went back to her old job.

the dream died for her which was sad to hear.

manfromuncle

5th Nov 2007, 20:52

"the mayday call came out over the numbers!"

Errr, what's "the numbers"?

bladepitch

5th Nov 2007, 21:17

inter pilot frequency. 123.45. used by pilots to chat or exchance info

Bravo73

5th Nov 2007, 21:45

"the mayday call came out over the numbers!"

Errr, what's "the numbers"?

From the ATSB report:

"During the descent, the pilot transmitted a MAYDAY call to Essendon Tower and the photographer transmitted a MAYDAY call on frequency 123.45 MHz to alert the pilot of the B407."

bladepitch

5th Nov 2007, 23:13

thanks bravo. :) for the clarification

i have never read the report. only a good memory of what i heard that day over the radio.

Bravo73

6th Nov 2007, 07:48

No worries, bladepitch. I was really answering manfromuncle's question.

But from your personal experience of the event, it sounds like the 'photographer' was less 'alerting the pilot of the 407' but more 'putting out a cry for help'...

[email protected]

6th Nov 2007, 07:57

I'm with TET on this one - she found herself in a situation for which she was not adequately trained and scared herself sh8tless. High hovering and low speed manoeuvring are normal situations for commercial helo pilots to operate in but do the potential problems (and their recoveries) get covered on CPL training?

InducedDrag

6th Nov 2007, 13:29

It is my feeling that the governor in the 44 does a great job.

One of the weaknesses of it, (which is really poor pilot skill), is the possibility that a nervous pilot can override it without knowing. When they get nervous, they tense up and prevent the gov from working.

Something many forget is the job that the correlator does as well. It handles most of the change in power demand by automatically raising and lowering the throttle with movements of the collective. If you want to see how much, just raise the collective all the way up (while the ship is on the ground NOT running). Now lower it down and note how much the throttle is rotated.

I have had several people tense up at the bottom of an approach and set the horn off. You have to let the throttle do it's job. If this happens, you have to roll on throttle.

One way I like to surprise:E students is load them up a little and have them set up an area for a nice confined area approach. When the collective is lowered on the initial decent, the correlator will roll down the throttle. I then grip my hand firmly, half way on the collective tube and half on the grip freezing the throttle in place.:E This way the student never feels me roll off the throttle. In their hand they feel nothing because I am not allowing it to roll back up as they pull more collective at the bottom of the approach.

I start distracting them on the way down, asking questions about wind and obstacles in the area....the whole time I am watching RPM s..l..o..w..l..y drop each time they add a small amount of power. They never even notice as it happens so gradually and I am doing the best I can to keep them loaded up.

Right as we start to go down in the hole, their attention is fully focused on where they are landing and remaining clear of obstacles......then usually at about 30-40' agl........ RAAAAAAAAAAAAA, they will pull just enough power to drag the RPM down below 97%.

Here is where it gets interesting.... Most just totally freeze, some try to lower the collective, even worse....a good amount will ADD collective thinking they are going to abort the landing. We are way to deep into the power required curve for that to work! None roll the throttle up (on the first time ...)

After the flight we talk about how the gov in the Robbie works and that you must roll on throttle when you hear the horn. Most never figure out how I lowered the throttle on them, without them feeling it:E... They dont feel it the next time either.....but most students make the right correction second go at it. They will not soon forget the sound of the horn and what the proper correction should be.

The reason I bring all this up, is I believe she froze on the throttle. Even if she lowered the collective after the horn, if her hand was frozen on the throttle, the correlator just rolls off the throttle as you lower it. You MUST roll on throttle.

rotorrookie

7th Nov 2007, 00:32

BINGO! we have a winner.....:E InducedDrag nailed it and this explains the long rpm recovery, at least it sounds like possible reason.

But it's sad to hear that she(pilot) gave up flying after this incident.... probably because she never had any "mean n' nasty" instructor as InducedDrag:E

3top

7th Nov 2007, 01:08

Hi all,

interesting thread!!

Some of the listers mentioned as a recovery, to lower the collective, adjust the pedals and push forward.

It is amazing that even some old hands still use airplane technique to recover from low rpm (low speed in the plank).

If you push forward with low rpm you make it way harder to recover rpm.

FIRST get your rpm back, which in this case would be collective full down (even if you freeze the throttle this would get you into an auto)
when you got your rpm green again, then and ONLY THEN start to look for forward speed.

Saw the same mistake at a factory transition training session (AS350) with a very experienced jokey. He could not explain the principles of autoration, rpm control and speed control.
It was a big surprise to him that he lived all his live with "Get forward speed immediatly". Listening to some "experiences" he had over his career, confirmed his believe. Lucky he got away with this for some 15K+ hrs.

Wouldn't blame the girl on this, shame she quit.
As mentioned she seemed in over her head.
But praise the R-44 for their survival, had this happened in a Ranger with real LTE, the would be gone...

LTE does not exist on a properly rigged R-44 (It was mentioned that the bird was nearly new, so there should be no reason for incorrect rigging...)

You may run out of pedal, but the TR NEVER looses effectivness.

When on a certain photoshot I almost everytime had to hold with a 1/4ing left tailwind (the worst direction on the R-44) and the helo starts to really get itchy on the pedals to hold steady, but it will never let go.

I saw this demonstrated by a factory guy:

70% rpm, 1/2 fuel, 2 ft hover, 2 persons on board, less than 5 kts wind, hard surface, doing a slow pedal turn to both sides.

Try that in a 206, or anything else for that matter.

Saw the same demo at about 75 to 78% rpm in the R-22....

I even doubt VRS in the case discussed, decent rate was not fast enough for a full VRS.

Guess I would call it "uncontrolled paniced decent in own downwash!" :)

Hey **** happens (:oh: sorry.....)

Someone pinch her somewhere :O and get her back into the cockpit!!

No need to quit, I ran into worse BS and it (nearly) always was my own fault!

3top :cool:

thekite

7th Nov 2007, 09:19

Nice phrasing: how did it go again - was it "fresh clean, beautiful air through the rotor system" - well put! Do you moonlight as a poet? :D

Nice too about lever down, cyclic fwd-- not unlike unstalling an aeroplane in fact. Which brings me to: VRS. :{

She was heavy, high, perhaps distracted, and down she goes. VRS starts like that for sure. But VRS does not make you spin either way and your RRPM does not decay.

So: VRS or not; there were other elements at play here. What made her spin, what decreased the RRPM?

thekite

NickLappos

7th Nov 2007, 11:57

The complex situation looks like this to me:

1) Pilot gets slightly disoriented and gets way too slow. Aircraft backs into an OGE hover that is beyond its power capability.

2) The added power needs of the OGE hover cause the aircraft to descend rapidly as it slows.

3) the hover also is into a fairly strong wind at the tail, and the pilot is too slow applying pedal to correct it. The aircraft whips around to the right.

4) The pilot pulls up the collective and applies full left pedal as the descent and yaw are fully developed.

5) The collective/power that the pilot commands are beyond the engine's capability and the rotor rpm droops fairly low.

6) The low rpm makes the TR very ineffective, as well as the fact that the high main power now creates the need for even more anti-torque. The aircraft is entering VRS at the same time because the pilot is unable to arrest the descent with power alone. The pilot is confused and somewhat disoriented.

7) After flopping around through a thousand feet of basically uncontrolled descent, the pilot lowers the nose and the collective and accelerates out of the mess.

Cause: Pilot airspeed disorientation causing entering OGE hover inadvertently, misapplication of collective causing low rpm, loss of yaw control from low rpm

If you call it LTE, as the authorities did, you say the aircraft bit the pilot. If you call it poor airspeed control, you say the pilot bit the aircraft.

delta3

7th Nov 2007, 16:22

Quite interesting thread.

Could not really make up what really happened.
I assumed that given the load and hight it should not run out of power (assuming it was a II) Personnaly had many VRS's in that case but no low RRPM.

So perhaps it is as Nick says combined with InducedDrag's remark that as she approached hover she got nervous and frooze the trottle when starting to pull the collective this being the reason for lack of power.

d3

Backward Blade

7th Nov 2007, 22:05

Induced Drag..You the Man and I agree completely. That is SOP out here in Canada and had the priveledge of learning exactly the way you describe. Personally think all students in Robbo's should fly the first 25 hours with thumb and forfinger on throttle only but that's just me.

Now would somebody go find that poor pilot and sit her ass back in a machine! Your company would probably benefit greatly in the long run!

2 cents

BWB

bladepitch

8th Nov 2007, 20:35

Bravo

its exactly what happened. one of the previous posts mentioned from the camera vision that it happened quickly and to some extent "violent". The male voice tone mirrored that term.

to hear someone like that over the air gave me goose bumps form the point of view that he was relaying through his voice tone and level exactly what situation he was going through.

topendtorque

9th Nov 2007, 11:21

I think Nick has expalined the sequence much better than I, and I'll go with that. No one need get a siver star for working out that she "froze" on the throttle. That was bleeding obvious, along with the xmit button.

Crab mentioned that there should be covering sequences in the CPL syllabus.

I think we can go better.

Let me say that the 'esse' of helicopter flying is - departing from a hover into forward flight and arriving at a hover.

That is regardless as to whether we carry internal, external or nowt load.

It must make sense that every student - "every student"- phl or chl has the capacity to arrive at a hover at each of the only two basic requirements.

I.E. 1) with close visual cues in or out of ground effect. or
2) with minimal visual cues OGE.

In my case I was told, "yer wanta watch it when yer don't have much too look at" or, if "you are on a flat surface of water".

Neither was the more difficult situations ever demonstrated to me, nor was I required to demonstrate proficiency in the skill.

It is about time that it was included in all syllabi, and I suggest that it should be done prior to solo nav-ex.

I suspect that nearly all contributors here got the same sterling advice and they are still around to proffer advice.

And by the way, if you ever flew '47J's or KH4's with pax that fart, you will know a lot about "fresh beautiful clean air."
tet

heliski22

9th Nov 2007, 13:04

It's a long time since I flew Robinsons, or did that kind of flying in anything else either, so the chat on "whys and wherefores" is interesting.

It seems to me, however, that the discussion is ignoring/avoiding another, more personal aspect to this incident.

I am disappointed to hear the girl has stood down, presumably voluntarily. A few gasps notwithstanding, and presuming it was her voice we were listening to, she didn't seem to get in that much of a flap about it - freezing up is one thing but she didn't lose control completely either, as evidenced by the aircraft continuing to a safe landing and remaining undamaged.

Who amongst us hasn't had a sphincter-tightening moment from which both we and the aircraft emerged unscathed due more to good fortune than experience?

Applying the old horse-riding theory that a fallen rider should be put back in the saddle immediately to avoid any fear-based loss of confidence, it seems a concern that the girl didn't get back in the air for a month after the incident (I may have misread this time element). Who was responsible for this?

There may be many factors of which I am unaware that made this happen, of course, but any delay could well have contributed to her deciding to stop flying? A few too many sleepless nights reliving the incident (including the voice of the cameramen screeching in her ear) without any proper debrief or even counselling where necessary, would have easily sent things off in the wrong direction.

So near the 1,000 hour mark - seems a shame!

"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising again each time we fall!"

topendtorque

9th Nov 2007, 18:39

"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising again each time we fall!"

Excellent quote.

When will someone tap her on the shoulder?

heliski22

9th Nov 2007, 20:06

We must assume that somebody on here knows who the pilot is and might encourage her not to give up, even at this stage. Heaven knows, there's a big enough shortage.

More importantly, there must be somebody who would take her under their wing to ensure appropriate steps are taken to re-establish proficiency in an orderly manner while also getting some work out of her - a balance between re-hab and gainful employment, so to speak, operating in controlled circumstances and away from, for the time being at least, the more demanding flight regime foisted upon her at the time of the incident.

As I noted earlier, possibly freezing on the controls notwithstanding, she didn't get into a complete flap about it and start over-controlling and all that good stuff but held on grimly to the end.

Given the ease with which this can happen in the absence of proper training, then does the evidence not suggest she has a goodly portion of "the right stuff" somewhere inside her?

If the "short flight afterwards" was carried out by the same people who sent her up there in the first place - under-trained and ill-prepared - it could hardly have been productive.

NickLappos

9th Nov 2007, 20:23

heliski22, I completely agree with your support for the pilot. Here is an exchange that I had a few years back on rec.aviation.rotorcraft that discussed the same point. A young pilot who fell into a spin during solo practice was flogging himself about it. My response :

Dear Student,

I've been flying professionally all my life. I've taught hundreds to
fly all kinds of machines, and I am now the chief R&D pilot for an
airframe manufacturer. From this view point, I see your learning
experience, and your reaction to it to be admirable and healthy. Don't
chastise yourself about missing some sleep the night before, and don't
lament the 90 degrees of rotation before you caught on. Instead,
consider how much you learned, and how the altitude you used as a
backstop when to practice the stall came in pretty handy.
My experience with pilots has shown me that those who feel bad and
accept the error are healthy, normal and likely to live and fly a long
long time. Those pilots who find an excuse, and rationalize the problem
to find some way of keeping their ego unpunctured are really somewhat
dangerous, and very likely to press on into weather, or make some other
blockheaded mistake.
Just be sure and keep that healthy respect for your capacity to make a
mistake, and plan on what to look for when it happens, and plan on what
to do to ameliorate it. Flying is a sequence of continuous error
corrections. Any pilot who tells you he never makes mistakes is telling
you he has never seen the mistakes he has made!
Good luck, and keep on flying and learning.

heliski22

9th Nov 2007, 20:42

Thank you for that, Nick! As some time now passed, we must hope she hasn't been irretrievably frightened off at this stage!

hihover

10th Nov 2007, 17:20

TET / Crab -

I'm not sure exactly what you both feel should be included in a training syllabus that would have prevented this excursion from the flight envelope.

The pilot was unaware of her proximity to the edge of the envelope and whatever it was that caused the LTE and subsequent loss of control, I don't see how you can possibly put that responsibility onto any aviation authority.

What a fright this girl must have got, the video was terrifying.

3top, stating that LTE does not exist based on a controlled demo at 2 feet sounds odd to me.

Can anyone tell me if there is a maximum rate of yaw on the R44?

The reason I ask is that, I was once in a Gazelle where control was lost in a lookout turn at 5ft. Clumsy lead boot pilot, strong wind, unable to stop the turn. After about 6 x 360s, we crashed. Fenestron Stall (French LTE) was blamed and prompted an in depth study. In fact, it turns out that, after extensive testing, the French Test Pilots could not agree that the fenestron was stalling, it was simply not man enough to stop that rate of yaw. I tend to believe them, they're smart guys.

Combined with the effects of low rrpm, could this not be the case here?

tam

topendtorque

11th Nov 2007, 00:34

hihover

I'm not sure exactly what you both feel should be included in a training syllabus that would have prevented this excursion from the flight envelope.

That's easy; Require the student to bring the A/C to a stationary position relative to a reference on the ground at least 1,000' AGL.
Do it with the wind from the four azimuths, nose, tail and each side.
Do it at varying wind speeds, but especially in zero wind speed and at the maximum allowed for the A/C in a xwind as per the POH.

re your Q. I think you should check Nick's post #45, Para 6 and 7.
Yes the T/R must run oput of puff eventually as the RPM spools down but really is that an issue when you are rapidly approaching rotor blade stall. Getting the M/R A of A to respectable form might be the first priority.

You say in your experience you crashed, run out of M/R lift did it? Perhpas you could bolt both a R44 and a Gazelle to a turntable, run them at a desired RPM and see what happens to the T/R effect. Possibly it would be a good idea to take a few airsickness tablets first, or a good shot of Rum.

hihover

11th Nov 2007, 01:37

I don't doubt that your suggestion would be a useful exercise, beneficial to some, however, suggesting that any authority should require it in a syllabus might take some justification. I can think of other more beneficial training that would take priority over high level hovering. Do bear in mind she was not attempting to establish a hover. She lost control in a turn.

If a pilot is required to hover at that height or operate at low speed at that height, the operator should be responsible for ensuring that the pilot is capable. Basic commercial training syllabii are just that - basic.

My question about the max rate of yaw is aimed at that first moment where yaw control was lost - before the low rrpm horn. If the wind weathercocked the aircraft at too high a rate of yaw, perhaps that was already in excess of max rate as she tried to stop the yaw.

Gazelle - run out of M/R Lift?? Not a chance. It has tons of power. Unfortunately, that huge keel surface was being whipped around by the 20 kt wind and at that rate of yaw even with full opposite pedal applied, it just would not stop. The pilot applied more power instinctively to get away from the ground and as we climbed we started pitching as well as yawing so he dumped it on the ground. All over in 10 seconds.

Your turntable exercise sounds fun, a bottle of Bundy's best would make it messy though.

topendtorque

11th Nov 2007, 21:10

hihover.

She lost control in a turn.

Perhaps you missed this:-
Quote:
‘The photographer, who was also a licensed helicopter pilot, reported that the helicopter had almost approached a hover as it turned downwind’
(corroborated from the ground)

Basic commercial training syllabii are just that - basic.

Agreed, but there is not much more basic an action than being able to hover close to or far from visual cues.

We have had them where they would lose it just coming to a hover prior to landing. Those with a license I mean.

Further commercial work edicts - following a moving targert, especially one that runs away downwind, etc - should be the responsibility of the AOC holder, I agree.

Had this pilot been subject to the simple exercise as I suggest, almost certainly the A/C would not have had yaw control compromised, IF that was the case.

It is very hard for me to believe that the A/C could not have been brought under control much quicker, like in the first quarter of a turn.

I have experienced both R22's and 47J's, flick violenty for a quarter of a turn and recover instantly - and violently - when they got rid of the problematic recirculating air.

R44 T/R surely should have authority if it is given a chance.

tet

hihover

11th Nov 2007, 21:23

No I didn't miss it at all, the point I was trying to make was that she was not attempting to hover, she was attempting to turn.

I've never flown the 44 but I tend to agree with you, I am sure it could have been brought under control with a quicker action had the pilot been aware of the immediate situation she was in. But she wasn't aware and was bitten well, poor girl.

tam

heliski22

12th Nov 2007, 10:14

I've never flown the 44 but I tend to agree with you, I am sure it could have been brought under control with a quicker action had the pilot been aware of the immediate situation she was in. But she wasn't aware and was bitten well, poor girl.

Bitten maybe, but not hard enough to get in a complete panic and lose control altogether.

heliski22

21st Nov 2007, 21:46

Bump!

Let's not forget about this for the moment, people!!

Anything on the pilot?

heliski22

22nd Nov 2007, 18:27

That didn't last too long, did it?

rotarypilot

23rd Nov 2007, 05:17

I doubt this was LTE very much. Robinson built the R22 and the R44 around the tail rotor, could be VRS or overpitching but I doubt LTE very much.

If I could ask a silly question what was that pilot doing in a single engine aircraft, over water, beyond auto distance from shore without a float equipt aircraft?

2leftskids

23rd Nov 2007, 05:56

If I could ask a silly question what was that pilot doing in a single engine aircraft, over water, beyond auto distance from shore without a float equipt aircraft?

Airwork

heliski22

23rd Nov 2007, 18:31

If I could ask a silly question what was that pilot doing in a single engine aircraft, over water, beyond auto distance from shore without a float equipt aircraft?

All the same, it must be great to be perfect to be able to stand in judgement of others!

22

Hughesy

23rd Nov 2007, 22:10

Not sure about Aussie, but in New Zealand.....without going into the finer details but you can opeate a "single engine aircraft, over water, beyond auto distance from shore without a float equipt aircraft" aslong as the people on board are WEARING life vests.

So I will be bold enough to say the pilot in video was perfectly legal in how she was operating. (if they had them on).:ok:

rotarypilot

27th Dec 2007, 12:39

That's interesting I was not aware of that.

Heliski22 I do not claim to be perfect and I agree that its very convenient to play armchair quarterback when you can sit back and analyze the situation, however in Canada it is illegal to operate and aircraft in that manner. I made the mistake of assuming that regulation was followed elsewhere in the same manner, which I think it should be as even if the passengers have life preservers on they made become disoriented if the aircraft flips over (as helicopters tend to do when they strike the water being so top heavy) and have difficulty egressing from the aircraft.

In addition What is the point of reviewing these video's if not to comment on what caused it and make an effort to learn from someone else mistakes?

Helicopterist

16th Jan 2008, 19:07

What if she simply got disoriented (she was flying very slow, almost hovering, in absence of points of reference) and didn't realize the machine started to yaw a bit. As the yaw gained momentum she was not very quick to give full pedal (many pilots don't have an instinctive reaction to hit the stop under stress) and simply thought she had lost the T/R, hence she shut the throttle. That could be another explaination of the early horn, as well as why the horn took so long to come back (was still sounding when she had resumed straight flight at what seems a good clip of speed).
R/rpm must have dropped a lot because it took the whole descent to restore it. Would simple overpitching result in such a long time with the horn-on if full emergency power was on WHILE so much altitude was being lost (could I add at attitudes that should place decent airflow through the disks?) and speed being re-gained?
As Nick pointed out, the LTE "excuse" adduced in the investigation report makes even less sense (again why the low rpm horn so ealry if it's LTE).

In any case, in my view rotor rpm got pretty close to beyond recovery. Guess, they got a break because of the 44s high rotor mass and the lots of altitude they hade to play with, but this could have been a nasty one. Lucky crew.

Nevertheless, kudos to the girl for keeping her cool and trying a recovery till the end.
Never give up!

Torquetalk

14th Sep 2009, 13:25

Hi

Looking for the video of the R44 (over Sydney Harbour?) that over-pitched and came oh-so-close to falling out of the sky.

TT

VeeAny

14th Sep 2009, 14:04

You can download it from here, but you need to get an FLV player off the web to play.

Griffin Helicopters | Video Player (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/videos/playonevideo.asp?videokey=1661)

I need to add some code to the page to make it play embedded and don't have time at the moment.

Torquetalk

14th Sep 2009, 14:21

just what i was after.

many thanks :ok:

TT

RVDT

14th Sep 2009, 15:27

Toob Version

K2qPA_gniL8

n5296s

14th Sep 2009, 18:23

Scary, but what triggered it? If it was LTE why is the rotor horn going practically from the beginning?

n5296s

VeeAny

14th Sep 2009, 18:43

N5296s

The reportis here http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/666073/aair200600738_001.pdf

In it states.

The activation of the low rotor RPM warning horn after the onset of LTE was probably a function of the combined effects of an initially high or increased collective pitch setting, the possible application by the pilot of an amount of left pedal in response to the right yaw, the violence of the uncommanded yaw and descent, and of the control inputs used to recover the helicopter.

Wild assumption on my part but I imagine many peoples initial reaction to the turning and falling would be to pushleft pedal and raise the lever, both of which will contribute to an increased power demand and droop the rotor RPM.

GS

Rainboe

14th Sep 2009, 19:21

Not a helicopter pilot, but fixed wing. I notice the helicopter early on snaps into what looks like a sudden 90 degree roll or change of pitch (depends where the camera was pointing, and it seems to be a very mobile one!). Can someone answer how this is possible in a helicopter- changing attitude at that rate? Wouldn't the main rotor disk hit something?

TRC

14th Sep 2009, 20:59

Rainboe
I notice the helicopter early on snaps into what looks like a sudden 90 degree roll or change of pitch (depends where the camera was pointing, and it seems to be a very mobile one!). Can someone answer how this is possible in a helicopter- changing attitude at that rate? Wouldn't the main rotor disk hit something?

I think that it's more likely that what you see is a momentary vertical gyro toppling of the camera turret. I can't believe that any helicopter has that rate of roll - let alone a two blade head type.

Rainboe

14th Sep 2009, 21:44

Yes, it's got to be unreal. A snap toppling of the gyro stabilisation of the camera looks far more realistic. I liked the panting sound effects- at least she didn't sthcream! She's 25% Australian! (advert joke for Fosters Beer in the UK)

Torquetalk

14th Sep 2009, 22:09

Maybe we shouldn't be so hasty to attribute the "apparent" roll to gyro topple of the camera. The aircraft appeared to have little airspeed and clearly a very high rate of descent: perhaps the roll may have been the result of a secondary vortex state condition.

Not the scenario here, but rates of roll of up to 100º per second have been determined for the R22 in extreme low G roll conditions.

TT

Heli-phile

14th Sep 2009, 23:54

I found the audio more disturbing than the video.
You could actually hear the RRPM reduce to very slow "draggy swipes"
I was relieved to hear the blades start to spin up again, but not, Im sure as relieved as all onboard.

If this is not already in the Robinson safety course - it should be.

n5296s

15th Sep 2009, 00:10

I found the audio more disturbing than the video.
Especially at around 24 seconds. I don't know what the rotor RPM was at that point, but a lot lower than I've ever heard it or want to.

The camera gyro has obviously tumbled early on, otherwise there is no way it could be pointing the camera at bits of helicopter. But the sudden roll at around 43 S looks like the real thing.

Is LTE recovery (by the book) any different from LTR recovery? I.e. (assuming enough altitude) enter auto-rotation (at least, that is what I have been taught, before anyone jumps in and tell me that they presume that from now on I'll do something completely different)?

n5296s

ReverseFlight

15th Sep 2009, 00:35

If this is not already in the Robinson safety course - it should be.

I think it will be - I have attended the RHC safety course where Tim Tucker showed all sorts of R22/R44 accident videos from all over the world - except the USA itself. Either our American friends never make mistakes, or else he has done this deliberately for US marketing purposes.

Is LTE recovery (by the book) any different from LTR recovery?

I think the POH says autorotation (I haven't got it with me) because that's the easiest option out. The skilled pilot would however roll off throttle, lower collective and once the spinning slows or stops, forward cyclic to pick up airspeed, assuming sufficient height in the first place.

Torquetalk

15th Sep 2009, 05:34

Not in this situation! Lowering pitch: yes, but rolling off throttle would have depressed the RRPM still further.

The RRPM values sound somewhere near complete stall in the video: roll ON and lower! It's the action the pilot clearly didn't take (insufficient drill?) and the situation deteriorated very rapidly from there.

They were incredibly lucky to survive. At the point where the aircraft moves horizontally over the water, the alarm stops: probably got an RRPM gain through increasing translational lift at that point: then the alarm goes off again! My guess would would be gripping the throttle due to stress and impeding the governor.

TT

[email protected]

15th Sep 2009, 07:19

The Robinson safety notice says it all - the pilot was unaware of the increase in power required as the IAS fell and ETL was lost - subconsciously probably raising the lever to maintain height and slowly decaying the Nr (thus further reducing the TR effectiveness).

Then, when it starts to spin, a reluctance to lower the lever sets off the Nr warner, the Nr droops further, increasing the RoD and the yaw because the TR isn't spinning fast enough. It takes him nearly 2000' to do what he should have done in the first place - lower the lever!

VeeAny

15th Sep 2009, 08:30

N5296s

This page may help Helicopter Safety | Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness [LTE] (http://www.helicoptersafety.org/genericaccident.asp?keyword=LTE) there are a couple of documents part way down the page which detail LTE recovery actions.

In essence and without trying to give flying instruction over the internet the recovery actions for LTE can be summarised as

1. Full power pedal (to the stop)
2. Forward cyclic to gain airspeed (if space permits)
3. Lower lever to reduce torque (if height permits)

Obviously speak to your instructor for an in depth look at LTE.

Torquetalk

15th Sep 2009, 13:56

VeeAny

I think the first recommended action for recovery from LTE (full pedal deflection) may have tipped RRPM below the critical stall value in this situation (assuming she hadn't already done just that).

The question is whether this was just LTE (caused, for example, by an unfavourable wind vector), or LTE and low RRPM and an uncommanded sink rate due to running out of power. The aircraft is clearly over-pitched. LTE seems to be a symptom and not the cause of the trouble the aircaft got into. And in itself LTE would not have posed an immediate risk: a spinning aircraft is better than a falling one.

TT

[email protected]

15th Sep 2009, 17:03

torquetalk - I agree, in the normal situation you might expect the rate of yaw to reduce or stop as you weathercock into wind - however, if you are inadvertantly moving at the same speed as the wind that won't happen and you will keep going round. I think overpitching is the root cause here which drives everything else.

VeeAny

15th Sep 2009, 18:48

Gents

You may well be correct about the root cause of the video.

My LTE comment is in response to

Is LTE recovery (by the book) any different from LTR recovery? I.e. (assuming enough altitude) enter auto-rotation (at least, that is what I have been taught, before anyone jumps in and tell me that they presume that from now on I'll do something completely different)?

Not a comment on the VH-WYS case.

GS

ReverseFlight

16th Sep 2009, 03:34

Lowering pitch: yes, but rolling off throttle would have depressed the RRPM still further.

Allow me to elaborate. As she overpitched, pitch must be lowered , agreed. However, due to the correlated link to the throttle (this is type-specific for Robbies), lowering collective is not enough to stop the torque/spin. The solution is to simultaneously roll off momentarily when the collective is lowered - note that with the horn starting to sound (there's a very wide margin above the full stall, no dramas), the governor is not helping you maintain rrpm and rrpm has to be increased via autorotative descent. Once you stop spinning, forward cyclic to gain airspeed. A full auto is not necessary as once you picked up rrpm, you roll back on and the governor engages again. Then raise collective to add power as you fly away.

Torquetalk

16th Sep 2009, 07:36

Reverse Flight

I think this goes back to which problem is identified as primary. And that has to be low RRPM. The recommended procedure for recovery for the Robinson is rolling on throttle and lowering the collective. LTE wasn't the thing that nearly killed them.

The correlation between collective and throttle you refer to is likely to drive RRPM disproportionately lower than the given movement of the throttle, as it "overreacts" (closing the butterfly valve more than desired) at lower power settings (circa < 20") and this is exactly where you're heading even if you roll off only a little.

You may be right about the margin between horn and complete stall, but manipulating these values in training in is one thing; being behind the curve in an emergency is another. The values clearly reached a critical value on two occassions before recovery.

It will take the aircraft 2-300 feet to establish in autorotation, so the RRPM recovery from entering autorotation during this period is solely from reduction of pitch, especially if descending vertically with the wind as the aircraft appeared to be. Entering auto is not the way to get RRPM back in the first instance because of the lag as the aicraft accelerates.

The correlation is not Robinson-specific btw: The Schweizer also has the same system, as do some models of the Enstrom. It isn't even piston-specific: A similar correlation between pitch and fuel demand is used in Turbine helicopters.

Apologies if this is all a bit pedantic, but it seems to me that the focus on LTE recovery leads the discussion in the wrong direction.

TT

ReverseFlight

16th Sep 2009, 14:08

Hi Torquetalk, I'm just glad that you are taking it as seriously and professionally as I am.

If the primary problem is low rrpm, I fully agree with you that rolling on (plus reducing collective, height permitting) is the corrective action. I can vouch for that - I have used this exact technique several times to save low rrpm in an R44 when it was hot, high, humid and heavy. From experience, I cannot trust the governor in an R44 to do its job properly when the job demands it.

If the LTE spin were the primary problem, then you must rid the spin before you fix rrpm, as the spin is very overpowering (it is in control, not you). I have only known two other pilots (apart from myself) who has experienced full-blown LTE and lived to fly another day (they were both instructors at my old FTO) and they couldn't stress enough the importance of rolling off throttle first. I have also practised LTE recoveries with them and you'd be surprised at how effectively the roll-off retards the spin.

Flying with the horn on is not for the faint-hearted in a Robbie. That's why Tim Tucker regularly flies with students at the RHC safety course deliberately at low rrpm with the horn blaring to instill in them that it's not a must-die situation and it is perfectly flyable for prolonged periods in that configuration.

Actually getting back rrpm back in a low-inertia MR is not as difficult as it sounds. It only takes 75-125 feet (Oz syllabus) or 100 feet (FAA syllabus) to establish autorotation with collective full down. Unfortunately because throttle had to be closed to stop the spin, we can't roll it back on until we gain some forward airspeed to keep our tail aft in flight. Once that happens, rolling on will no longer pose an LTE threat.

I apologise if I confused you with the auto. In lowering collective and rolling off you are going to loose some height and that is going to push air up the MR blades as in an auto, giving additional rotational force to the MR. However, while I agree the main method of restoring rrpm is the rolling back on of throttle, that is the last action in the entire sequence. The lady in the video had 2000' above the waters of Port Melbourne but of course the technique would be different at low levels (separate discussion warranted).

I did not say only Robbies have correlated throttles ; I just meant that due to the specific setup in a Robbie, the corrective action is type-specific and should not be used in another make of helicopter without further consulting the POH/maintenance manual.

But I totally agree that if low rrpm is the primary problem, we should not be discussing LTE at all !

Torquetalk

17th Sep 2009, 21:16

Hi Reverse Flight

I think it’s such good and rare footage that Robinson are sure to incorporate it in their safety course. It’s great to show to students and get them to discuss as a group what went wrong and what action should have been taken.

When teaching, I demonstrate loss of tail rotor in the hover/at low air speed, and rolling off certainly kills the spin. And I also try to teach that the horn is a warning rather than a command. Still, if it goes off unexpectedly and you’re somewhere between 97 and 80? %, you have to fall back to drill. You don’t have time to analyse, interpret and react: roll on and lower: Robinson tells us to lead with the throttle during the recovery action.

The values you mention for establishing autorotation are a bit lower than I would have expected: are they perhaps for an R22 which needs to move less air to get the RRPM back?

Regards

TT

ReverseFlight

18th Sep 2009, 12:24

Hi there again, Torquetalk. The definition of commencement of autorotation in my theory notes is when the MR rpm stops decaying and starts to increase due to the windmilling effect from below. If you're talking about fully-restored rrpm in the auto, then I agree that the height lost must be more than what I quoted.

[email protected]

19th Sep 2009, 06:54

Are we sure it was a lady pilot? I know the heavy breathing is clearly female but you can hear the distress call being put out in the background by a male voice. Since the audio comes from the camera footage, isn't it more likely that she is the photographer or assistant?

Back to the recovery - accepting the effect of the correlator as a side issue, lowering the lever as a single action will stop the Nr decaying any further and, by reducing the power demand and therefore torque reaction, reduce or stop the spin as well.

diethelm

19th Sep 2009, 16:30

During a training session a very good instructor wanted to demonstrate how to recover from a very similar situation.

Up to about 3500 AGL and into a OGE hover. He starts a spin to the right rolls down the throttle, RPM starts rapidly going away and asks me to recover :eek:

Fortunately he has me do it with him the first time. Down goes the collective, gentle on the pedals to prevent bouncing off the stops. RPM comes up, spinning slows to a stop, push forward and off you go in less than 500 feet. Next exercise, demonstrate that you can autorotate straight down and do pedal turns. The main point of his instruction is to relax and not to over do control inputs.

Young instructors can clearly get you through. They can even explain things on paper and watch videos of accidents. Older experienced instructors can show you simple things in difficult environments, combine them and then throw in a curve or two so that when these things happen, you as calmly as possible can deal with them. This guy was a master at this and every chance I could get I would have him take me out and make me sweat.

IntheTin

20th Sep 2009, 04:34

Not having the time to go over all this thread again, but didn't someone in an earlier post state that it was a female pilot and that she hadn't at the time of his post, flown again?

Squeaks

20th Sep 2009, 08:01

Not having the time to go over all this thread again, but didn't someone in an earlier post state that it was a female pilot and that she hadn't at the time of his post, flown again?

To summarise (for those who haven't read the ATSB Report, or previous posts):

The pilot was a female, and following the incident she was given further training and flying. She has since decided to return to FW flying.

The video and soundtrack is from a tape off a stabilised camera, the soundtrack is of the female camera operator. Hers is the heavy breathing, and later the query to the pilot if she is OK.

The left front seat was occupied by a male who hired the helicopter and made the banner, who is also a PPL(H) and was taking photographs of the banner. He gave out a distress call on 123.45, being used for inter-helicopter calls during the filming task.