Heli down at Sheffield?

[Biff Tannen]

Saw a call on the 999 screens late yesterday afternoon for a helicopter crash at Sheffield Airport. Belive it was two people walking wounded. Anybody heard any more?

[Stringfellow Dork]

A member on another forum reports that what was to be an auto with power recovery quickly, and I would guess unintentionally, turned into an EOL when the power failed to come in - landed on soggy ground and subsequently rolled over. Also reports of a cut for one fellow and x-rays for the other.

Hope everyone is ok.

[nigelh]

Is this not , maybe, another case of the practicing of autos actually causes more destruction, more fatalaties, and higher insurance for everyone ? maybe engines are now reliable enough to take autos out of the Top 5 procedures during training. Maybe not , but i have been ,on and off, in the industry for nearly 30 years and all the full EOL,s that i am aware of amongst all my friends and employees were in Bell 47 s back in the 70,s !! If a reduction in the amount of EOL training knocked 10% off my premiums I would be very happy :ok: Before i get mauled by experts, how many more helis do people think have been trashed practicing EOL as against for real ? I would guess it is at least 10:1 having said that they are good fun !!!!!!!!!!
ps i am told they do not do EOL training any more in Russia for just this reason , that may be B*****ks ...

[cl12pv2s]

maybe, another case of the practicing of autos actually causes more destruction, more fatalaties, and higher insurance for everyone ? maybe engines are now reliable enough to take autos out of the Top 5 procedures during training

Don't wholly agree with what you say here...


but it is a really good reminder to instructors, that if you are going to practice an autorotation to a power recovery, the site you choose MUST MUST MUST be suitable for a full down!!!!

landed on soggy ground

And seeing as you are 'intentionally' initiating the maneuver, then there's no real excuse if your landing site is not suitable.


cl12pv2s

[mongoose237]

I agree to an extent with Nigelh as regards the cost/benefit of practice autorotations.

I appreciate this is slightly off topic as I understand this was an unintentional EOL, however with regards to intentional EOL:

I find myself agreeing with the decision by the CAA last year to remove taught EOL as a compulsory item of the PPL syllabus, whatever the motive for change was ;)

Provided a student knows how to enter autorotation, arrives at flare height, with airspeed, and attempts some form of flare and levels before touchdown they will walk ( limp :ouch: ) away.

And that is ALL that matters; machines can be replaced, people can not. This can all be adequately taught in a power recovery autorotation.

Completing the last 8 feet without damaging the aircraft is little more than a party trick that has the capacity to go expensively wrong very quickly. This is not worth the risk at PPL level; instructor demonstration is sufficient.

All IMHO

Without any prejudice to the instructor, a valid reminder made by cl12pv2s - there was a similar but more serious incident in Queensland I recall.

Hope for a speedy recovery for all parties involved

[rotorfossil]

Whilst I agree with the CAA decision not to require an engine off landing on the PPL/H skill test, (an acceptance of the reality), they are still supposed to be demonstrated and followed through during the course.
An unfortunate side effect though is that people pursuing the modular route to CPL/H inevitably tend to arrive at the modular course phase with little if any ability to repeatably do EOL's. Worse, they also often have the firm conviction that they are difficult and dangerous. As EOL's ARE a requirement for the 170A and/or the CPL/H skill test, a fair amount if time then has to be expended teaching them.
Another secondary problem is that people presenting themselves for an instructor course in the minimum hours are also unlikely to have great confidence in their abiity to fly them, let alone demonstrate or teach them.
As to flared recoveries to the hover: The snag is that in reality, the technique as generally flown is not the same as in an EOL, and if the engine doesn't respond when the lever is raised, you are going to be a bit high and short of RRPM, at least in the R22.

[mongoose237]

I agree that this could result in those going on to CPL/FI having less confidence in the procedure. However, it is simply no longer compulsory to teach EOL. This therefore places the onus on the instructor to assess the student's aspirations and tailor the training accordingly. In reality, in excess of 90% of students will be aiming, and stopping, at PPL level.

We all know that there is an awful lot to cram into a short space of time in the PPL syllabus, and people's bank-balances mean each hour really needs to count. Often the amount of time it takes to finesse a low hour, pre-PPL student to be fully competent to demonstrate an EOL is disproportionate to the benefit it confers to the student. They can be safe an awfully long time before they are safe *to not break the aircraft* during an auto.

Any type tests must include a student demonstration of an EOL. As many PPL students go on to type rate to other machines soon after their licences, this makes a convenient point to focus on the more tricky procedures such as an EOL.

Yes, power recoveries can go wrong, but my initial discussion point was one of cost/benefit. By intentionally attempting an EOL, you are opening yourself up to a greater risk of it all going pear-shaped than if you are intending a power recovery which may result in ground contact, which in turn may go pear-shaped. There will always be a degree of artificiality in emergency training, and I think that has to be accepted.

[helicopter-redeye]

Out of interest, anybody know which aircraft? Even which type?

[Bravo73]

A 300.


No prizes for guessing which Sheffield operator it belongs to... :}

[Downright Aft]

Yep,

I'm inclined to agree. Ask a very large Florida based helo training academy how they're feeling having lost four helicopters in EOL & Power recovery training in as many months.

Downright Aft

[rotorfossil]

Downright aft
Re large school in Florida losing 4 helicopters in EOL and power recovery training. I wonder whether that is making my point about instructors not being confident about the process because they didn't do many in their training. If the bird gets broke, in the end it is down to the instructor.

[mongoose237]

Then one can argue that they shouldn't have been passed as instructors?

Different things are expected of the pilot depending on what level they are at. Flogging EOLs all through the early days of training because one out of ten will go on to be an instructor seems a little impractical.

Maybe accept that less time will be spent on them at PPL level, and consequently slightly more time on them at CPL and FI level?

Again, just my very humble opinion

[Downright Aft]

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/K_0216_N.txt

One of the four! The rest are all there to be found

DA

[Gerhardt]

The same argument is battled in the fixed-wing world over spin training. For the record I am against mandatory spin training. And there is a lot of required training to avoid getting into spins, so that makes this a bit different.

But I have to respectfully disagree with you gents on this subject. It is comforting to know that should the engine quit in the R22 I'm confident that I could set it down safely, especially as a low-time pilot. All because of the mandatory training. Without the training, should the engine quit 1) I would panic like you wouldn't believe and 2) I am absolutely convinced I would be hamburger.

With that said, at this point I'm only practicing them with the CFI by my side and that's not likely to change until I have many more hours. And he would be the first to kick my tail if I tried practicing anything over unsuitable terrain!

[mongoose237]

Gerhardt are you referring to practicing autorotation, or practicing what us brits refer to as Engine Off Landings, emphasis on the landing - ie a full down auto, no recovery at flare height?

IIRC (and its been some time since I was in the US) EOLs only have to be demonstrated by the examinee at CFI level?

[Gerhardt]

Sorry about that, I was referring to autos. I'm confusing my terms here, as my CFI refers to EOL synonymously with autos. It looks like I've stubbed my toe on this, as I don't see the need for a PPL to perfect full-downs.

Thanks for correcting me gently.

[mongoose237]

Not at all, Gerhardt, I was merely clarifying rather than trying to correct you.

Different terminology is always a problem, particularly on international forums
Settling with power / Vortex ring
Translating tendency / Tail rotor drift
EOL / Full Down Auto
To name just a few

[Up & Away]

The worry is that its the Instructors now that don't practise EOLS enough to be confident. Surely an Instructor should be demonstrating EOLS daily?

[mongoose237]

Instructors should still be as confident and competent in the procedure as it is only the compulsory requirement to teach EOLs that has been removed from the syllabus. Therefore an instructor can still opt to teach the EOL. And if not, they are still expected to demonstrate EOL with student follow through. So I can't see instructor standards falling.

R22s are very crashy-worthy machines with a large margin to safely walk away from an engine failure, which thankfully is very rare on type. The problem is, like modern cars the R22 has been designed to sacrifice itself to save the occupants which means the margin to walk away and not bend the aircraft is significantly reduced.

The downtime, loss of earnings, potential loss of students, insurance excesses and bad publicity that a school has to endure when an EOL goes wrong is not to be underestimated IMHO.

[Up & Away]

thats my point
"Instructors should still be as confident and competent"
but because he/she does not have to teach he/she won't be encouraged to try!! i.e.Don't risk it..
ask new PPL students awaiting skills test
How many EOLS have you been shown? = minimal if any at all
why because
"The downtime, loss of earnings, potential loss of students, insurance excesses and bad publicity that a school has to endure when an EOL goes wrong is not to be underestimated "
I agree even the R22 Can cope with EOLS

[mongoose237]

I'm not sure I agree, although I suspect there may be a degree of semantics. There is a difference between teaching, and demonstrating with student follow through. The removal of the requirement to teach the EOL does not remove the obligation to demonstrate. So any instructor that puts their student in for test with minimal if no experience of EOLs has not done their job. The wording is quite clear in the relevant Heli TrainingCom.

If any instructor feels they are unable to demonstrate an EOL to a satisfactory level, then the relevant Head of Training should address this issue.

I still maintain that completing the last 8 feet without damage to the aircraft is a party trick that is the preserve of a flight instructor who flies the procedure day in day out. That exercise has a relatively small margin for error. The student should be assessed as being able to perform said exercise whilst falling into the larger margin of not injuring the occupants, because frankly in a real emergency I do not care what happens to the machine provided the pilot and occupants are safe. I also find it quite distressing when I see people being injured whilst practicing for an event that thankfully is very rare.

To complete an EOL without damage to machine or occupants requires a level of skill that every instructor should possess. That is not a skill a PPL requires IMHO

[nigelh]

What point are you trying to make !??:confused: Of course EVERY helicopter is " quite capable of EOL,s" !!! We are talking about whether there is any real genuine reason in this day and age to practice them. Remember the training syllabus comes from way back when helicopters DID actually go all quiet fairly often, but the new generation of engines are very reliable, hence twins crossing the atlantic. I guessed earlier that 10 helicopters are crashed practicing autos for every one crashed in the real thing, most people i have talked to say they think it could be 20 !!! Fine, practice autos in your heli but you should have to pay an insurance premium for doing so. I am looking at getting a quote for 10 - 20 helicopters of under 1m value where SPECIFICALLY they will NOT be covered for EOL,s...if the premiums are way down who wants to come in? Looking for 20% min savings, prob 500 hrs PIC min and named pilots.

Mongoose 237 Totally agree, the last few feet are not important...the Heli is insured and this is the type of claim that ShOULD be made. But how many full power loss incidents have there been in UK in last few years ? ( dont count going into auto for other reasons, usually unnecessarily!!)

[rotorfossil]

I sometimes wonder if we disregard the psychological element of training. There is a lot to be said for students to be taken a bit beyond the minimum training standard so that the norm has no terrors.
When spin training was required, this was the big one and stalling a bit of a non event. Now the emphasis is on stall avoidance, I detect that stalling has become the bogey.
In the rotary world, now that EOL's are less emphasised, I am detecting that doing autorotations (not touchdowns) require the right omens/incantations/throwing the bones etc with possibly an unfortunate hesitation in lowering the lever if it all goes quiet.

[mongoose237]

I too think the psychological side of training is frequently overlooked. All too often students have developed irrational fears of certain aspects of flying because the instructor has opted for the old-fashioned fire and brimstone approach, allowing fertile imaginations to run away with themselves, rather than spending a little more time in the classroom understanding what is going on and allowing a proper risk assessment to be made.

[nigelh]

Nobody is saying dont do autos !! Do as many as you like, practice entry into a stable auto on every trip, find a suitable spot , aim for it , but dont do the last 10 -15 feet......thats where it will all go pear shaped and you will " hit some boggy ground, land on a bit of a slope, apply too much aft cyclic,get a sudden drop in headwind etc etc etc all the excuses that have been used over the years, but the result is always the same .....bent Heli and insurance premiums up !! Why on earth do it ?????:{

[Up & Away]

A Helicopter Instructor since '79 ..
EOLs were bread and butter!!
alot more than just a 'Party trick'
why now is it suddenly too risky??
what is going wrong??

[Southern Cross]

Sorry, just can't agree that there is no place for EOL's in PPL(H) syllabus. (and as an aside since someone has mentioned it already, I also don't agree that spin-training has no place in PPL(A) training).

Whilst I do concur that recovery of the machine to a hover or slow speed level at 8 feet is going to likely result in a non-fatal arrival, why should PPL students not be taught EOL's properly? Granted perhaps an EOL in an R22 in nil wind is not the right time to be flying the exercise, but select your conditions and landing area - ought not the student be taught to get the flare / level / lower co-ordination correct. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it ought not to be taught even if the instructor is following through, helping correct on the controls or fine tune the technique etc. I reckon few PPL students are going to get it right simply by following through.

Spining fixed wing likewise. Recovery from incipient spin is taught. Fine. But what if through gash handling or whatever, a pilot not taught how to recover from a spin, finds himself in one. Surely it is better for him to have experienced what can be very disorientating in a controlled environment before having to deal with it in an uncontrolled environment?

I can't argue that accidents from practice EOL's will not result. But since EOL's are something many pilots will have to deal with in reality, why not give them at least some prior experience of actually landing one so that they have a chance of not wrecking their or someone else's machine should it actually occur. And experience of it reduces the fear of it - fixed wing spinning is a classic example.

[mongoose237]

I haven't advocated stopping doing them, I merely agree with the CAA that for the most part they are demonstration only with student follow through at PPL level.

A good instructor will carry out an EOL time after time without incident. The one time it goes slightly wrong however - windshear, student's unexpected response to ground rush, or any number of other variables - will you wonder if it really was a fruitful exercise in the context of who you are training or more a demonstration of the instructor's prowess? Hence the term party-trick.

It would be interesting to see some statistics - number of aircraft damaged and people injured carrying out practice EOLs, against the number of actual engine failures resulting in damage and injury.

R44s, Jetrangers, Bell 47s, Enstroms all auto a dream. H269s aren't too bad either. But the reality is most people train in the R22. Doing EOLs in an R22 is a more delicate matter, and I'm not entirely convinced its worth the risk trying to teach a pre-PPL student the procedure for what I see as very little benefit.

Does the instruction on vortex ring suffer through the student only experiencing the incipient stages thereof? How about the days when we had to demonstrate low g? :oh: A step back, or a step forward?

Just because something has been done a particular way for a long while doesn't necessarily mean its been right all that time.

Just one man's opinion

But since EOL's are something many pilots will have to deal with in reality
Are they?

Do you believe there is a huge difference between a power recovery after completing a flare and levelling the aircraft, and settling it onto the ground and running on as per being taught in running landing?

I guess it also depends on what you consider teaching and what you consider demonstration with student follow through.

[nigelh]

Training stalls and spins is totally different as it can be done at altitude, why not do EOL,s in fixed wing then ??? There has been no good case put forward for continuing wrecking , mainly r22,s admittedly, by practicing them. It is pure mathematics !!! If you stop EOL,s it will save X million pounds which the insurance companies can hand back to owners by reduced premiums. My group of owners will get a greatly reduced premium ,hopefully,due to limiting the risks that insurance companies dont seem to care about!! ie Hangared,no EOL,s, named pilots with min experience,no claims bonus etc Hopefully my annual insurance of £16,000 will plummet faster than those R22,s....:ok:

[Southern Cross]

Actually a fixed wing PFL to land with the engine at idle IS in fact as close to being the equivalent of an EOL as is possible and is or should be something every PPL(A) student does - obviously one would fly it from or close to the overhead onto the runway. But that is now a bit off topic.

I don't for a moment disagree that reducing perceived high risk exercises ought to reduce insurance permia and all power to you if that actually pans out.

But to the extent one can disregard that financial aspect for a moment, I still don't see that it is better from a skills perspective for the majority of pilots not to have actually flown (closely supervised etc) an autorotation to touchdown...

However I don't and have never flown R22's so perhaps my view would be different as regards them...

[mongoose237]

Southern Cross do you believe that every PPL student should be taught an EOL ie be able to complete satisfactorily without damage to the aircraft through their sole manipulation of the controls (my personal definition of having been successfully taught something, not an official one!), or merely to have experienced them, know and understand the procedure, and therefore have a decent shot at one in the unlikely event that they have to do it for real?

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

I have never taken auto's all the way to the ground with any of my students and after 1500 hrs instructing I have had a good few get their PPL H's, and yet they do an auto to the ground on their test and to a man or woman they all said it was straight forward. So if they can do it for real having only ever done auto's to the hover why put the machine at risk during trainning for no reason at all.

And people say that machines like the Bell 206 and Bell 47 are great machines to do it in and I would agree but get it wrong in a 206 and thats 500 grand you just wrought off.

You can drop an R22 from 5 to 10 feet without doing it or the people in it much harm so if a student can get the machine to a spot, flair and leval at about that height than why risk taking it to the ground.........

[Up & Away]

mongoose237
just my point when CRAZYBROADSWORD posted
" I have never taken auto's all the way to the ground with any of my students (after 1500 hrs instructing)"
your thoughts??

[nigelh]

Well i guess it means he,s never smashed one whilst teaching EOL,s !!!!! I,m sure his students are perfectly sound pilots as well.:ok:

[mongoose237]

I'm in no position to pass comment, but I guess you could say CrazyBroadsword's clearly done something right as his/her students have successfully passed the quality check on training - the examiner! ;)

However, seeing as I presume these 1500 hours were not wholly completed since January 2005 when the change was announced, it adds little sway to either argument.

I too have spoken to many students that did their first EOL on test and despite the nerves all said it was fine. Whether that was right or wrong I guess it adds strength to the argument that it is unnecessary to teach them during the syllabus?

It certainly has been interesting seeing the spread of opinion from students, instructors and owners from around the world

[dunnarunna]

"trainning. wrought off. flair and leval "

I hope CRAZYB doesn't spell like that during his EOL briefs. :}

[Up & Away]

well I'll continue to fly autos to EOLs (as Instructor and Examiner).

My main concern here was for the Instructors who Sadly won't be allowed (by risk assessment) to do EOLs.

Their loss and their students too I think!

[mongoose237]

My main concern here was for the Instructors who Sadly won't be allowed (by risk assessment) to do EOLs.

I think maybe there are some crossed wires. As things stand, instructors must still demonstrate EOLs with the student following through at PPL level (as a minimum requirement), and any instruction carried out post-PPL requires EOLs to be taught.

So with insurance and company policy permitting, instructors should still be free to demonstrate, and if desired teach, EOLs. :)

[gyrotyro]

According to the AOC who operated the machine (an H300) the instructor pilot was demonstrating a full EOL to a potential buyer of a new H300CB and carried out the EOL in still wind as opposed to the minimum 10 or 12 kts required as well as landing on boggy grass. The result was pre-ordained to occur.

[R1Tamer]

10 or 12 knots required by what?

[Mama Mangrove]

Maybe the problem is having so many low time instructors whose only flying is the licence they just paid for. The old Bristow training school had all high hour pilots as instructors and EOLs were practised by students on almost every flight. Doing them properly to the ground is good for the student's confidence and a good guide as to his/her real co-ordination skills. I would never be happy to fly with professional a pilot who hadn't carried out numerous full touchdown EOLs as part of training.
I also agree that stall/spin recovery should be an essential part of fixed wing training.

[mongoose237]

Although assisted to a degree by overall experience in the air, I've always considered EOLs a skill that is predominately honed "on the job".

In an ideal world, schools would be staffed by high time instructors - and by that I mean having a high number of hours instructing.

EOLs and numerous other procedures that would undoubtedly make a more rounded pilot would be practiced until perfect.

But the reality is that there are not enough experienced instructors to meet the current training demands on their own, and people are paying for their own training so perfection is met by compromise.

The major difference between demonstration and teaching an EOL is the degree of repetition required. That increases significantly:
1. the statistical risk of something going wrong
2. the long term fatigue and damage that even successful EOLs place on an airframe
3. the cost to the student by several hundreds of pounds through paying for the extra flight time.
The extra servicing, the non-scheduled maintenance, the insurance excesses, all must be met by a private operator. A cost that is then past onto the student in the hourly rate.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that cost comes before safety. However, once an acceptable level of safety is reached, anything beyond that is subject to question particularly if there is another option that is considered as effective.

Although I am sure there are such examples, there does not appear to be a spate of people injuring themselves and damaging machines in engine failures through lack of adequate training. However there are numerous incidents, of which this is one example, where both people were hurt and a helicopter damaged practicing for an event that does not seem to be occuring that often. And when tested, even those students that have not been repeatedly taught EOLs are still managing to successfully complete the procedure.

One presumes its a delicate moment explaining to the owner and injured parties that you wrecked their machine / brought about their injuries whilst training them not to wreck a machine and injure themselves in the very unlikely event that a similar incident occurred in reality.

EOLs are an essential part of any pilot's training. The question is how you go about that training in the most effective and beneficial way.

With regard to comments about professional pilots and their competence in EOLs: well that is an entirely different story IMO.