Leaving helicopter with engine/rotors running - merged threads [Archive]

Ascend Charlie

14th Nov 2003, 04:44

There are plenty of situations to get out with it all turning and burning. Fire bucketing is one - a wire tangles on your bucket, or the "sock" doesn't go back; we only carry a light fuel load so a top-up is needed about every 40 minutes - leap out and pump it in by yourself. Shutting down is totally impractical - time wasted in run-down, waiting for TOTs, the count of engine cycles going through the moon.

You are sent to a remote site to collect fire inspectors for a quick recce - get outside the rotor disc, find out what they want, guide them in strap them in, go flying. Land again, get out, get them out, put the seat belts back inside the doors, shut the doors, go flying.

I did hear the story and see the photos of an R22 - the pilot thought there was an unusual vibration, so he landed on the only treeless area around, a rock above a cliff. Not an even surface, and when the pilot got out to examine the problem, he didn't stand on the skid. Maybe the controls weren't frictioned up. Maybe the cg changed, and anyway, the machine started to jiggle. Pilot grabs hold of helo as it jiggles towards edge of rock and tries to pull it back. Then he thinks "What the hell am I doing?", lets go, and watches the machine disappear over the edge.

John Eacott

14th Nov 2003, 06:22

CASA have an exemption for helicopter pilot to be away from the controls here (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9507.pdf) . Main points are:

Skid helicopters only
Controls to be locked
Must be essential to the safety of the helicopter or passengers
Pilot to remain in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter

BlenderPilot

14th Nov 2003, 06:50

We had a pretty noticable accident a few years back of an S76 being completely destroyed (Villahermosa, Mexico) as the pilot left the acft and it rolled over by itself, I don't know how exaclty, maybe Nick knows a little more about this incident.

I myself have to do this very often, for various reasons, to take a leak, up or download pax, get my camera, etc. etc.

On I DO friction the thing tightly, I used to take the HYD out, but have stopped doing this recently due to possible motoring, and always at idle, never at 100% NR.

slowrotor

14th Nov 2003, 12:35

When I got my first ride in a B206 on the north slope of Alaska the pilot got out (engine on) and he told me to climb in, as he left the area.
So I looked at the back seat, which appeared full, so I thought Oh boy! I get a front seat.
Well, I had been taking fixed wing lessons so I knew the pilot sits on the left.
I got in the right seat, all the way in (trying not to touch the cyclic), then looked over and noticed the left seat controls were not installed. Oops
Looking over my shoulder, a guy in the back seat said "You better sit back here".
Turns out the jetranger has three rear seats,not two.
Don't think the pilot even noticed.

Ascend Charlie

14th Nov 2003, 15:58

perhaps the 76 pilot forgot to turn off the autopilot before departing the seat. It can do wonderful things when wind tilts the disc or tries to yaw the aircraft on the ground.:{

There are no frictions, just electric trims, to hold the controls steady. If he turned the trims off, the disc can flop around quite a lot, but at least the autopilot can't drive it. My choice would be:
Idle RPM
trims on
autopilot off
park brake on!

Dynamic Component

14th Nov 2003, 20:03

Had a discution with CASA about this one.It says all controlls should be locked, but only a few a/c like the BK have locks for both the Collective and Cyclic.They said that the wording might be changed soon:}

sprocket

15th Nov 2003, 06:28

Was strobing a 206 tailrotor some years ago. Heli was at 100% and flat pitch and I was about 10-15 feet away from the T/R. While tuning the chadwick in, a shadow appeared over my shoulder, looked up and there was the pilot who was supposed to be in the cockpit running the bloody thing! :ooh:

With a big grin he asked, "how's it looking?"

I quickly walked away until he got the hint. :hmm:

HFT

15th Nov 2003, 07:18

Two things to remember if you do get out and the helicopter does roll up on its own, so as to be still insurable.
1 I had to get out for a safety check, funny noise, pax safety, etc, don't say a got out to have a leak.
2 Do say you stayed within the area of the rotor disc, then you are still in control of the helicopter, in insurance speak.

donut king

15th Nov 2003, 07:40

Canadian reg's require a "competent" individual at the controls when a/c is running. Some wording like that.

Things that are done in the bush without the eyes of the DOT on you are not always the right choice. EMS or Offshore, you'd never get away with that. As far as my experiences go.

Ask the 76 driver whose machine rolled over (with him standing on the outside.) Wonder what his company/ DOT/ Insurance did???

D.K

Agaricus bisporus

16th Nov 2003, 07:41

Surprised to see none of the above mention type as a criteria. The highly professional co I used to work for regarded this as normal practice in a B206 though; strictly idle, hydraulics off, frictions tight, parked into wind, no gusting. On the As355? Utterly forbidden, under any circumstance. (cannot turn hydraulics off altogether).

Does the teetering head make this safer than a semi rigid? Any experts views?

backberner

16th Nov 2003, 08:10

sure it sits there nice and steady, but in a gust, wouldnt the now manual inputs from the wind hiting the blades, directly effecting the controls, easily over ride the frictions? the frictions would hold the hydralic-assisted controls a lot easier i think!

John Eacott

16th Nov 2003, 08:17

AgBis,

If you read CAO95.7 (linked in my earlier post) you'll see that CASA only allow the pilot to leave the controls for helicopters equipped with skids: narrows the field regarding types ;) Altho' I've heard reference to the practise of turning hyd's off, can't see the point, really. What does it achieve?

Autorotate

16th Nov 2003, 08:37

One of the best examples of what can happen was here in Kiwiland few months ago. A Glacier Southern Lakes EC120 was on a tourist flight around the Queenstown area and landed so that the pilot could get out and take a leak. He did make the passengers get out as well.

BUT - As he had the old fella out and giving it a shake he turned around and saw his EC120 sliding down the mountain and then tipping over. Needless to say he had a bit of explaining to do.

:E

HFT

17th Nov 2003, 06:12

In the R44 when in a older non hydraulic model the cyclic will slowly move to some very odd (dangerous) positions with frictions on or not ,if left unattended on wind down. The hydraulic version will stay in the neutral position even with frictions off. Always hyd on for me can't understand how turning them off would make it safer.

Scattercat

17th Nov 2003, 07:28

It's a widely accepted practice in many parts of the industry here in OZ. However ... give plenty of thought to the surface you're on. We had a H500 chase a pilot off a (steel) ship's deck, before jumping on top of him & thrashing itself to death. The pilot was very lucky to walk away from that one. Also several mustering machines have burnt to the ground while the driver had his hand on his "other cyclic" releiving himself. "... well boss, it was like this"...:*

MightyGem

18th Nov 2003, 06:09

In an EC 135 with a HOT BATTERY caption, the FM requires you land ASAP and then get out to inspect the battery without shutting down.

Thomas coupling

18th Nov 2003, 15:42

Mighty: keep up old boy, see page one entry!

I checked with our insurance company and they were quite happy to accomodate this anomally into their clauses.
All we had to do was tell them.

Helipolarbear

18th Nov 2003, 16:57

If you are SP. and HAVE to get out without shutting down, if flying a B430, S76, B222, A109.......etc..........disengage either the Auto Trim, SCAS, SAS and ensure electric and / or manual friction locks are on tight. Also, if wind is gusty ....just don't do it............and pee into the sick bag!:cool:

Flingwing207

18th Nov 2003, 21:03

First off, thanks for a lot of great information.

It seems that having the pilot exit a running bird is not a strict yes/no answer, but is based on a bunch of factors such as:

- type of A/C (are its systems & controls suitable for such practice)
- landing environment (wind, slope and makeup of spot)
- company/insurance policy rules

This brings up a parallel question. I have heard of the practice of having capable but non-rated personnel start up the aircraft before the pilot arrives, or sit in & "mind" running aircraft while the pilot gets out. How does this fit into the mix?

HeliMark

19th Nov 2003, 02:35

Our mechanics (engineers) routinely run up our helicopters without a pilot. Engine work or tracking stuff that needs to be done on the ground. And I would have no problem leaving the helicopter running with a mechanic in it on a flat improved surface. But anything other then that, not unless they are a qualified pilot.

I am not real fond of someone else (Single Pilot stuff) starting the bird for me.

Dupre

23rd Jan 2004, 07:56

Hi All,

I was doing some work next to a busy city helicopter pad yesterday (Mechanics Bay, Auckland) and noticed a lot of the pilots would land, and take their hands off the cyclic while the rotor was still going like the clappers.

I've only had one lesson in an R22, but surely there'd be a risk of the thing tipping over - or do the big boys flying turbine equipment (BK-117s, AS350s etc) have an automatic disc leveller or something?

Cheers,

Dupre.

vorticey

23rd Jan 2004, 12:30

"automatic disc leveling divice" closer to clamping the cyclic in the neutral position with frictions. maybe "manual disc holding device"? :E

Autorotate

23rd Jan 2004, 13:05

You will find that all those that use or visit Mechanics Bay are professional pilots and in 99.9% of cases they dont take their hands off the controls unless the aircraft is at ground idle.

Autorotate.

Helinut

23rd Jan 2004, 16:38

Dupre,

I don't disagree with previous comments, but it is also true that the bigger helicopters are likely to have devices that hold the stick more or less in position when on the ground.

The R22 is definitely one of the helicopters that has a floppy stick.

cyclic

23rd Jan 2004, 16:46

I fly a rigid rotor type, single pilot and find that at some stage during the day I will have to let go of the cyclic (I still can't write left handed). I agree this is best done at ground idle and at first it seemed completely alien having come from a two pilot operation with a large helicopter and flapping head. We have a cyclic "clamp" but I rarely use it as I prefer to have some control even if that means grabbing the stick quickly - landing on a ship for example.

the coyote

23rd Jan 2004, 18:11

The S76 has 3 electrically operated magnetic brakes coupled with 3 force spring assemblies (2 for the cyclic and 1 for the collective) that will hold the controls in position. The magnetic brakes lock the control position unless you release them with switches on each control. You can still move the controls against the spring, but they will return to the original position when you let go.

Aesir

23rd Jan 2004, 18:37

The B-222 also has an electric force trim which will hold the cyclic and collective in place.

So there is no problem releasing the controls on the ground or in flight.

Also on the B-206 it pretty easy to clamp the cyclic between your knees or legs and release the controls, preferred on the ground only though!

Also I find that the manual friction on bigger helicopters works much better than the R-22 - H-300 types.

Hilico

24th Jan 2004, 19:03

I can let go of the R-22 cyclic with both hands and keep it still by other means. But then, I've always been known as a clever dick.

Grainger

24th Jan 2004, 19:32

R22/R44: Lever down, governor off, idle at 70-80%, frictions on - in that order.

Once the friction is on the left hand might come off the lever but I keep the other one on the cyclic until all has stopped moving.

Non-pilot passengers are always briefed to stay put until everything has stopped. Hand goes back on the lever & throttle if anyone is entering or leaving via the left seat.

TheWayWeWere

25th Jan 2004, 04:05

In a single pilot machine like the Bell 206 it is done all the time. When on the ground, the friction can be applied to help but the primary stick holding device is the pilot's knees which he clamps on the stick to allow his hand to be used in other tasks. Even with fancier devices in other machines, my gut feel would be to have a part of me touching the controls so that I always have positive feedback as to what the physical status of the stick is. It works. And speaking as a former flight safety officer I don't think it is unsafe.

There is one other time when it is OK too. When up at altitude, flying along straight-and-level, and no danger of running into towers, mountains, clouds, etc, the stick can be clamped between the knees for a quick use of the right hand. For something that will take more time, the collective can be cinched with friction and the left hand used on the stick to allow the right hand to be free for writing etc.

There are times when a single pilot has to write things down. You do what you have to do.

Skycop

25th Jan 2004, 19:41

Somewhere I have a home video of a NZ registered AS-350B, taken from the car park of a South Island airport.

This "clever" pilot brought the engine back to idle and left the rotors turning then left the cockpit unattended to disembark two pax plus luggage. He walked off, leaving the aircraft running all by itself next to a gate in the car park fence, which he himself left wide open because he was carrying pax luggage. He went through the car park and into a terminal building and didn't return for about 15 TO 20 MINUTES! After about 10 mins we started filming because we couldn't believe what we were seeing.

Some major safety issues here. The aircraft could have destroyed itself by either the rotor making contact under the influence of a gust. If this had occurred, debris would have undoubtedly flown into the adjacent car park.

The engine might have caught fire with no-one to close down the engine. The turning rotors would have subsequently made it very dangerous for someone to re-enter the aircraft to shut it down or for the airport fire services to deal with it.

Or, perhaps more relevantly, a member of the public might have wandered through the open gate and 15 yards later made contact with the tail rotor or even attempted to enter the cockpit.

The pilot, now apparently in a major hurry, returned to his aircraft, jumped straight in, wound it up again, immediately (and I mean immediately!) took off to the hover and rapidly turned left and forwards (his blind side) straight into the path of another helicopter air taxying behind him, causing it to take avoiding action.

I also saw other stupid stuff going on in the hills around Rotorua with pax on board that made my hair stand on end. I wasn't surprised to hear, if these pilots were typical, that in that year, 1995, 10% of all NZ civilian registered helicopters were lost. :uhoh:

I'm sure things are better now, I would like to think that Darwininan theory, if not the authorities, might have sorted some of these pilots out.

TWWW,

Your last comment perhaps shows why there are so many left-handed helicopter pilots, it's easier to operate if you don't need to swap hands to write. ;)

B Sousa

25th Jan 2004, 22:46

You betcha, Friction or Force trim is the Answer in Bell Products. Try that without one or the other and the Cyclic falls over like a Limp D:mad:K. So does the Aircraft.

Ascend Charlie

26th Jan 2004, 17:10

Skycop:

You can bet your backside that the kiwi you saw was being paid by the Hobbs hour, so he was earning money while he was in the terminal. Seen it happen on bushfire ops, one operator left his bird running unoccupied for 45 minutes while he sat in the shade having his lunch.

Heliport

28th Jan 2004, 03:47

Threads merged.

ATN

31st Jan 2004, 06:29

Hi all,

During a Shell audit, we got a remark cause the FP took his hand off the cyclic for a few seconds during SD on a 365 N2. I let you imagine the commotion had the guy left the A/C unmanned with rotor turning.

Has any of you ever seen or heard of engineers, specifically trained, performing a ground run on their own ? Any reference doc. , idea/comment ?

Cheers

ATN

Aser

1st Feb 2004, 05:28

From the previus posts I can't see the need to shut off hydraulics.
Can any of you explain this?

Thanks.

Red Wine

1st Feb 2004, 10:02

Whilst we pilots enjoy a vast amount of flexibility, and can normally justify what we do is lawful and beyond attack by CASA or some legal challenger!!!

The defence of doing it this way for years, or my battery is weak, or the cycle count is to high is no defence at all.
I have just fought this one out with CASA [and lost]....and with "Strict Liability Penalties" applicable...[CAR 225[3], I don't ever want to fight this cause in a court.

The following rules apply:

CAR 225 [1]....The PIC must ensure that one [1] pilot is at the controls from rotors start to rotors stop.

However:

CAO 95.7....Exemption from General Requirement for pilot to be at the controls.

CAO 95.7.1....Allows you to exercise 95.7.2, regardless of CAR 225 [1] and CAR 230 [2], but not CAR 225 [2]

CAO 95.7.2…Does not permit the pilot to leave the controls, unless:

1]…The helicopter is equipped with skids.
2]…The collective and cyclic controls can be locked.
3]…If a passenger is onboard, then they can’t reach the controls.
4]…The pilot considers his/her absence is require based on safety of passengers or persons on the ground.
5]…The pilot remains in the vicinity of the helicopter.

Now the bad news:

CAO 95.7.2

1]...This immediately excludes all wheeled helicopters…..great!
2]...This excludes another bunch…AS350 and B206 series, as these aircraft only have frictions, NOT locks [AS350 collective lock accepted, but not the cyclic friction]….the legality here is locks verses frictions. [The S76 fails both 1 and 2]
3]…Passengers onboard…OK
4]…We tend to use this safety clause to cover most vague or fringe legalities…in this case it won’t stand up in court [or so the CASA lawyers say] unless there is real danger to someone.
The action of protecting offloading passengers does not hold water, as you could have shut down. Fouled wires/slinging equipment falls into the same barrel, as does refueling in the bush. [Don’t yell at me over this one, it’s a legal interpretation]…and as I said with Strict Liability applying, its going to end you up in some very hot and expensive water.
5]…The pilot to remain in the vicinity…OK.

The debriefing I had regarding this exercise was that the industry has been doing all sorts of things for years and years, and most of that activity makes perfect sense, however it may not be legal if tested.

AirWon

1st Feb 2004, 12:49

Sorry guys and gals, just had to respond to this ridiculously long argument. I can tell from some of these comments that many of the people giving their opinions have no clue what the hell they are talking about, or at least have never been out in the real world.
Lets make it real simple:

If you're out in the bush, i.e. Alaska or it's equivalent and you are actually working for are living you will get out of your aircraft with the blades turning at some time or other. It's just the way it is. If you have to ask why then you haven't been in this business very long or all you've ever done is airport to airport.

Now on the other hand, if you really think that it's wise to get out of your SK76 with everything spinning to go and help your lazy assed client/passenger retrieve their bags then you are simply an idiot.

Come on now people, this is not rocket science. That's why they don't pay us rocket science wages and I see no solid booster rockets on my 500!

If I have offended any then I'm sorry, but leave the dead horse alone.

Aloha.

High Nr

1st Feb 2004, 13:05

What a great First Post, shutting down a very practical and worthwhile thread, without offering a grain of worthwhile information that can broaden the topic, or enlighten the folk trying to gain a snippet of knowledge from the subject.

Your not #1 reincarnated are you??

AirWon

1st Feb 2004, 13:12

Mr or Ms. High Nr,
How many snippets of information do you need from nearly 50 posts? The job, aircraft, environment and circumstances dictate what needs to be or should be done. Do you really need specific examples?
No, I'm not #1 who ever that may be.

Aser

1st Feb 2004, 17:57

AirWon:
Some of us are still learning... please let me get a look in the "real world" from people working on it.
If it's boring for you ,just "click" on another thread.

PPRUNE FAN#1

1st Feb 2004, 20:09

AirWon:No, I'm not #1 who ever that may be.That may be me. It was an insult of sorts, because like you AirWon, I also fly in the real world, not some theoretical world like many of the apparent newbies, low-timers and pseudo-testpilots on this board.

And I'm right with you on getting out of a running ship; those who say it's horribly unsafe, those who haven't done it, or those who say it should never be done simply haven't flown very much.

But that's typical of this lot. The people who post here are an odd bunch. A guy flies such a shallow approach to a very noise-sensitive airport that a nearby farmer who feels threatened makes an angry gesture and these jokers take the pilot's erroneous description of the event as Truth Without Question then rush to his defense. A guy makes such a shallow approach to an off-airport landing site without evidently doing any sort of recon (high or low), nearly hits wires but chops off the tail of his Gazelle as he tries to avoid them (and then crashes, naturally) and these jokers defend him.

Although this board is supposed to be for professionals (the first "P" in PPRuNe), there really doesn't seem to be that many people posting here who are actually bonafide, working commercial pilots like you AirWon, and me.

Oh yeah, and their feathers get ruffled REALLY easily. Watch what you say here or the politeness police will come down on you like a ton o' bricks.

the wizard of auz

1st Feb 2004, 20:30

HEEEEEeehehehe, now the thread gets better. :}
Maybe I'm just a sh!t stirrer, but it always gets interesting when this sort of thing happens. ;)

Thomas coupling

1st Feb 2004, 22:40

Gawd damn you Pprune No 6.5

I've just changed the 'interest' aspect of my profile to reflect the fact that you had changed to a much more sensible chappie. Now you go back to showing your true colours ...again :confused:

Damn and blast now I've got to go back and change it again!!!!:yuk:

Glad you're back on form though, I have to admit...having an ars**ole on the forum adds that little "soupcon" of anticipation to the threads:ok:

As for your buddy Air1...the longer you stay in the bush the better, methinks. The fact is that:
If you're out in the bush, i.e. Alaska or it's equivalent and you are actually working for are living you will get out of your aircraft with the blades turning at some time or other. It's just the way it is.
has nothing whatsoever to do with rules and insurance. Your type probably ignore the former and can't spell the latter :E :E

Power Up

2nd Feb 2004, 08:21

Well said TC

PPRUNE FAN#1 - For some strange reason, I thought that all those interested in helicopter aviation were invited to read and post on this forum, or am I no longer invited as PPL or student CPL?
And if this forum is so harsh and full of jokers - why do you label yourself as 'FAN#1?

Sorry every one - b!tch complete.

Personally, at the stage I am at - I prefer to stay in the aircraft until rotors are no longer turning.

AirWon

2nd Feb 2004, 16:04

Dear All,
Oh the irony! In my attempts to bury this horse I seem to simply have pissed it off.
What can I say to appease but also to enlighten?
But first I have to comment about those who post and feel the need to add those stupid little smily faces every damn paragraph. Please stop it or ask mummy to help you with your writing.
To the point, and I really hope that this puts the damn thing in cardiac arrest...
Sometimes, when there's no-one around to get hurt, and the practicalities of the job you are doing demand it, you will get out of your aircraft with everything still spinning and do one of (but not limited to) the following:
1. Take a leak
2. Fuel
3. Put a line on
4. Take a line off
5. Take another leak
6. Check a funny noise, leak, smell, vibration
7. Adjust a mirror
8. Assist a colleague
9. See if everything that was there when you got in, is still there.

And on and on and on.........
Now for those of you that post here and are simply interested in helicopters in same way that some folk are fascinated by trains then please let that be the end of it. For those that keep asking and are just learning then I hope that this clears it up a little. there are times when you can and times when you definitely should not. As far as the legalities are concerned, then that is a whole different ballgame. If you boys flying in Aus or NZ really have such anal regulations then I'm sorry to hear it. But those who do this for a living will know when to and when not to. It's all about experience and some things just cannot be flogged to death on a forum. Although we are doing a pretty good job with this one.
That's it. The horse is dead. I just punched it off from 2000'.
Aloha!!!

maintranschip

2nd Feb 2004, 16:26

Airwon has mentioned it and Redwine has produced an excellent example. In Oz the CASA regs are incredibly anal. They are not written to help the industry, merely to give CASA something to hang someone by, should they need to.

AirWon

2nd Feb 2004, 17:12

Dear Ms. Coupling,
I've just been re-reading the last few posts and came across the insult specifically addressed to me. I saw it the first time I read your post and let it go but seeing it again has got me a little pissed off.
You sad little chief pilot.
Go starch your flight suit and bull your little booties. Leave the real flying to us.

ShyTorque

2nd Feb 2004, 20:46

Airwon,

I think it's a bit rich that you join the forum and after ONE post expect to close down the thread.

On your third post you want to stop people using smilies, as provided by the owner of the bulletin board, just because you don't like it. And expect to have the last word on the thread?

On your fourth, you want one current member to hang up his boots on your say-so.

Well, I bet your colleagues look forward to a meaningful conversation on a nightstop with you.

:rolleyes: (Smilie deliberately used here, especially as I've paid to join this forum.)

AirWon

3rd Feb 2004, 02:11

Ms. Torque,
....but it's OK for someone to just insult me? I also didn't realise that there was a seniority list on this forum. Don't say anything that might upset people until you've paid your dues on this forum. Give me a break. Some of you professionals obviously have way too much free time.
Sorry, children but I'm bored. It seems that this should be the club 18-20 forum. Direct replies from grown ups who just might know what the hell they are talking about are not welcome.
Enjoy yourselves in the sandpit.

ShyTorque

3rd Feb 2004, 02:48

Ms Airwon,

No, not really OK just to be insulted unless there's a good reason for it. But then, most folk don't just barge in cold to a new forum (or a room, or anywhere) and start laying down the law like you did. Perhaps that's what caused offence?

There's no seniority list here, just that most folks prefer a little common courtesy. Perhaps you thought you were at the top of the seniority list yourself? (Smilie not used, in order not to upset the grown-ups).

As for the accusation of being PF#1, now that's not fair, whoever said that ought to take it right back...... Hi, PF#1, hows those practice approaches coming along?

Power Up

3rd Feb 2004, 07:14

Without trying to cause offence, some people complaining about professionalism believe that they are not allowed to lighten up. Because people can have a banter - does that mean they are any less professional whilst they are performing their job?

Sorry but personally I would not want to fly with someone who has such an attitude towards others without understanding thier positions. To me arrogant and obnoxious mean dangerous to me.

Old Man Rotor

3rd Feb 2004, 07:57

I can see the different points quite clearly.....

The practicalities verses the legalities.

Mr Airwon states a list of 9 examples in an attempt to justify why he/she/?? could/should leave the controls of a machine under power.

My view is that a Manhattan Lawyer would tear strips off Mr Won in support of his [??] boss, who would be trying to get back some of his investment money that the pilot rolled into a ball.
The bottom line is that in every case he[??] could [should] have shut down...anything else is a practical or commercial issue that would not [may not] stack up in the cold reality of the legal process.

But I'm not a lawyer, so we will never really know. Protect your own &^%$side in this industry, bacause everyone will try to get even at some stage.

PS. Mr Won, I suggest you insert your experience, quals, etc on your profile so you can enjoy some credibility when you post.

Bravo 99

4th Feb 2004, 04:39

Not done it my self and unless my operator insists it will not be done I was at castle Air the other day and there is a lovely Agusta 109 in the back of the shed in bits pilot got out for a leak rotors running and well over she went
friend of mine In the services watched a puma go over as the pilot got out for a flask of tea
this little beastie rolled a fair old distance before finishing in a heap
(no not the done thing i think)
also sorry guys but the last few posts seem a little heavy if someone wants to get out of a helo rotors running let him do so but dont let him fly with me
I believe that when Ii was trained it was not and is not the correct thing to do, and if you get out for any reason rotors running you may be a hero at the time if all gos well but is the ship gos tits up then the first name that you will be called is ****. the second is legal help required for a ****
still not the done thing to many eyeballs of dented ships for my liking to do it

Thomas coupling

5th Feb 2004, 06:58

Mrs Thomasina Coupling here:
I'd like to make it quite clear who does the starching and bulling in this household....as for leaving his chopper unattended while his motor is running.......
I'll be the judge of that :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: :ooh: and another:ooh: for Air1.xxx

Hey Bravo 99, who was the driver of the rolled Agusta at the time?

Bravo 99

5th Feb 2004, 19:53

not sure the A/C had all the reg markings off it but i think it was a spanish police ship. it looked a sorry site i must say

Aser

6th Feb 2004, 03:33

Spanish police (and Guardia Civil) uses Bo-105 , BK-117 , EC-120 and recently EC-135 , I was told by a police mechanic that agusta made a bid for the A109 Power but... EC-135 was the winner (of course) :ok:

Regards.

Bomber ARIS

6th Feb 2004, 04:19

Aser,
The 109 is no stranger in Spain, por ejemplo EMS with Helisureste, but you do raise the question of its suitability(or otherwise) in the police ops role.

I believe that in the UK, the ratio of police 109s to 135s is somewhat uneven. I have been told that the sole British example is down to the ultra-aggressive, bend-over-forward-approach taken by the somewhat desperate UK dealer in order to have a token Police aircraft (with discount) to join their token EMS charity-buster(Mark 2!!)..........

..............I'll get my coat!!

Bravo 99

6th Feb 2004, 05:18

Did not what to get into a scrap chaps
North wales police has I beleive the only a109 and there is a Hems machine at sloanes the remaining police ships are either 135 355 902 and pas has a bo 105 not sure if its a spare or front line
pretty sure this 109 was from spain but as i said there was no reg on it
regards
Bravo 99

Thomas coupling

6th Feb 2004, 05:49

Bravo 99: For N Wales, read Dyfed Powys (Southish wales).
Might the 'black' 109 be a castle Air helo :ooh: ?

Bomber: You can't say that on TV :uhoh: :\

Power Up

6th Feb 2004, 06:04

The A109 for sloane - isn't that the yellow Princess Diana HEMS based at Coventry?

Aser

6th Feb 2004, 08:03

Bomber:
I known that Helisureste has a "large" fleet of 109 in various versions for EMS , recently I have been in Valencia airport when a helisureste 109 landed (and I saw real cool Bell-412 inside the hangar), but we aren't going to see any state police A109 due to the political and economical implication of Spain in Eurocopter.
I think the A-109E Power it's a great helicopter (a real Cat A) , my personal (and not qualified opinion) it's that EC-135 is more reliable and better designed for police ops ,also I haven't read about this kind of accidents http://www.apythel.org/exterior/accid/010305informe_accidente_A109Power_HSE.htm#Additional regarding the EC.

In the other hand, I'll admit that EC-135 is uglier than A-109E :}
Good spanish, Bomber Aris :ok:

Bravo99:
Are you sure it was a police helo? or could it be a civil one?

Regards.
Just a student pilot...

Bravo 99

8th Feb 2004, 02:06

pretty sure but it was at a fleeting glance
however there was a shed load of 109s in there
but pretty sure however I may be wrong

with regards th EC 135 it is good for police ops I am told. but I have it on a good say so that the MD 902 explorer is better (but dont wish to start world war three on the issue) and it is only a drivers point
regards
Bravo 99:O

Choppersquad

3rd Feb 2006, 18:41

gents

your thoughts, just after dropping pax off .the paxs have not closed the back door correctly you need to land in a field and close the door .

my question is
is there a safe procedure that you can leave the 206 rotors running with no one at the controls while you get out and close the back door correctly.i understand the safest way is to shut down but looking to avoid this if possable .

thanks
cs

Up & Away

3rd Feb 2006, 19:31

Without qualified ground crew support on arrival always shut down to disembark pax.

MightyGem

3rd Feb 2006, 19:35

Have to agree with that, but you try keeping an impatient pax for the two minute run down.

407 too

3rd Feb 2006, 20:03

last couple replies missed the question:confused:

flight idle, friction locks on. (wait for rpm to run down)

other than that, a tall stump to bump against to close door:ouch:

or just shut down:ok:

Thomas coupling

3rd Feb 2006, 20:32

Depends what your FLM says. Can you leave the controls of a helo thats running?

407 too

3rd Feb 2006, 20:39

legality and practicality are two different things, how many of you have exited a running machine when montizuma's revenge has struck,:eek: or that last coffee that can't wait for another half hour ???:uhoh: --be honest--

Teefor Gage

3rd Feb 2006, 21:15

There are too many "what ifs" in the original question for there to be a safe way of leaving the controls while the rotors are still powered.
What if there turbine decides to run-way up?
What if one of the control servos decides to have a "stroll"
What if there is a fluky gust of wind. 407 too suggests "flight idle, friction locks on. (wait for rpm to run down)" - Blade sailing is far more pronounced at lower rpm

Then there are some more "what ifs" for the shut down scenario.
What if the starter motor fails when you are in such a remote location.
What if there is a fire on start up?

If only life was simple.........

407 too's second post talks of the difference between legality and practicality. You try explaining that the accident happend "cos you only left the controls unmanned for a few seconds while you did whatever" and see how far it gets you in court.......

Capt Hollywood

4th Feb 2006, 00:09

Be it right or wrong, legal or illegal, I don't know too many people who would shut down a 206 just to shut a back door. I think if we're being honest most would land, frictions on, get out and shut the door, get back in and fly away.

Of course I would never do that as technically in Oz that would be illegal as it is not for the safety of persons in or in the vicinty of the helicopter.

CH :cool:

800

4th Feb 2006, 00:56

Interesting post, its an age old question.
Legality or practicality.
The most important thing is protecting your ass! Whatever you do, you have to the able to make that decision being able to justify your actions. (Mainly to the local avaition authority, the boss & the insurance company perhaps). That said, an understanding of the rules, the company ops manual and flight manual may help because how can you argue against the rule if you do not know the rule to start with.
In the australian Civil Aviation Orders (CAO's), Part 95, Section 95.7, paragraph 7.2 it states;
The exemption, "from general requirement for a pilot to be at controls", in relation to a helicopter is subject to the condition that a pilot must, from the time of starting the engine or engines until the time of stopping the engine or engines at the end of the flight, be at the controls of the helicopter unless:
a) the helciopter is fitted with skid type landing gear; and
b) the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls; and
d) the pilot considers that his or her abscence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons on, or in the vicinity of, the helicopter; and
e) the pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
Now, after all that the real questions are the definitions of "locking the cyclic & collective", "essential to the safety", "vicinity" and "immediate vicinity".
I know of CASA FOI's that have made a statement that "hot refueling" by the pilot is not "essential to safety" so this ruling does not apply (but that's another argument for another day).
But the definition of "essential to the safety", of the helicopter, and while remaining within the "immediate vicinity" to close a door probably is within the terms of the ruling as long as you can justify it.
Another thought; Why don't you brief your pax thoroughly and test them on opening and closing the doors prior to the flight?
Happy pondering.

SASless

4th Feb 2006, 02:14

How many million gallons of jet fuel ever been hand pumped...machine pumped into a running helicopter by the pilot during bush operations? Do I know anyone that has had any kind of problem as a result of that...or taking a walk over behind a convenient bush to leave a soil sample for the locals to ponder....or just to geek on a tailboom or shut a door? Not one. I have heard stories...pariticularly with helicopters in snow....especially if they did not have snowshoes on the skids.

Legal? That might be a great argument. Wise....that is another argument. Do it....yes..but now that I am older and wiser....I do it with great trepidation.

You can what if this to death...but the totality of the circumstances are the key to it. If it is getting a bit snowy, sunset is coming, it is -45F outside....shutting down might not be the right answer. Setting on the beach next to the beer stand and lined up double breasted boobie birds....no brainer...shutdown every time. (....and pray to the great Helicopter Wizard that for once the starter will go on strike!)

Steve76

4th Feb 2006, 02:24

Don't be daft. Roll to idle, friction up, get out and shut the door.
FHM says nothing about this at all. Check your op's manual thou. 407 too knows a thing or two about flying, I would suggest you take his advice over any of the english pilots who have responded.
ie:
"What if there turbine decides to run-way up?"

What is a run-way up? Oh! you mean a highside failure... Not going to happen unless you roll on the throttle and in all the JR hours I have flown and all the JR pilots I have chatted with, I have never heard of this happening.

"What if one of the control servos decides to have a "stroll"

Where would it go? The rotor system will not change its plane of rotation unless acted on by a force on the cyclic. Frictions ON! Some say that you should switch off the HYD but that is a load of bolloks too. Makes no difference. HYD are just power steering like your car and you leave that idling at the shopping mall.

"What if there is a fluky gust of wind. 407 too suggests "flight idle, friction locks on. (wait for rpm to run down)" - Blade sailing is far more pronounced at lower rpm"

This is a Bell not a Sikorsky or Hughes.

As a sidenote, I worked for a tourism operator once upon a time who left the machine running while you escorted your pax around a tourism attraction. I think the total distance was about half a kilometres walk (plus the climb up the hill :) ) from the machine. It was always interesting to see if it was still there 20mins later. Once in a while the wind would shift and a reassuring whine would float down the hill...
Each to their own.

PS: if you shut down and it won't start. Tap the starter with something solid - axe, piece of wood etc and then try the start, Still nogo? Repeat the above with one of the customers finger on the start button (NOTE: thottle off!) Usually it is the brushes that will cause starter failure.

Capt Hollywood

4th Feb 2006, 02:29

When I was in NZ a couple of years ago we did we trip up to the Fox Glacier. After we landed the helicopter was left running while the pilot got out and played tour guide for 10 mins. All legal in NZ too, or at least it was then!

CH :cool:

Aesir

4th Feb 2006, 03:01

Don't be daft. Roll to idle, friction up, get out and shut the door.

Totally agree with you Steve. It´s no big deal to leave the pilot seat with engine running like any other tractor.

Just beware of the local or operators rules. I know that in Denmark it is illegal to leave the seat while engine is running, but it is not so in many other countries.

erchie

4th Feb 2006, 03:05

Good God Almighty.
For that to illicit any form of reception gives me courage enough to express opinion. If I am wrong in any way, shape, or form, please inform me as I am not a pilot of many hours.
"Leave the controls."
Not unless they were on fire or were otherwise going to endanger the safety of my aircraft/crew, or passengers.(In that order, by the way.)
Time should never be the pilots' concern. We all hope that we find operators that understand this.
They do exist.
I know.
There will be arguments about FOMs etc, but how could anybody feel happy about leaving a rotary aircraft unattended at idle. FULL STOP.
Dont care if you are bush or not.
A/C does'nt like it, engineers dont like it, whats the problem??

SASless

4th Feb 2006, 03:41

Erchie,

If you are in fact a new pilot....you will be confronted with lots of decsions in your working life that do not fit into the orderly frame work you describe.

You will find that "time" is the very essence of a pilot's life. It may be revenue hours for pay to the contract, to your purse, or for bonus calculation. Time may decide how many lifts you get done in a day and the lifts are paid by tons moved....thus wasted time is expensive. Time counts towards component wear, TBO's, fuel burn....the list is endless. Thus I suggest you consider what these "Bush" pilots are telling you. They have all been out there doing the job and know too well what "time" means to a pilot.

Your point is well taken...."time" alone should not dictate safety standards but one has to balance "time" against the risks as you balance other issues including revenue earned and costs incurred over "time".

It is not as simple as it appears. One of the requirements of being a safe, professional pilot is being able to strike that balance so it all works out.

eagle 86

4th Feb 2006, 04:53

Many years ago two military students of mine were briefed on how to swap seats at the half way point of a first night mutual at a relatively busy joint-user airfield during the business hour rush:
collective lock on,
throttle flight idle,
cyclic friction on,
force trim on,
right hand seat occupied last then first.
All understood?
Yessir, do we do this on the Duty Runway?
GAGS
E86
PS with students don't leave any stone unturned!

Airmech II

4th Feb 2006, 10:09

Ask the pilot of G-WKRD , it is not that simple chaps and things can and do go horribly wrong. The easy answer is don't do it, the Engineers answer is that the machine is in it's best state of equilibrium whilst at flight idle and applying full frictions should suffice. please don't think that and SAS/Autopilot will prevent lifting/inputting just leave it as you would if you were sat on the ground at flight idle awaiting your pax.

BigMike

4th Feb 2006, 13:57

As Capt H says, normal for the pilots on the Glaciers in NZ to be away from the helicopter, and doing the tour-guide bit. In 30+ years I don't think anyone has ever had a problem.

http://www.helicopter.co.nz/assets/image/pic-glaciers-3.jpg

http://www.heli-flights.co.nz/assets/snowlanding-9a.jpg

Oogle

4th Feb 2006, 14:44

Hollywood

Read the CAO's. I think you will find a reference in there about leaving an aircraft with the engine still running. Part 100'ish.

How about fire bombing you guys. You can't run an aircraft for 8 hours straight and not need to pee!

Friction it up properly and should be OK.

NickLappos

4th Feb 2006, 15:29

The other side of the coin is "Why not shut down?"

If you are not trained and have not done an idling dismount, then do not learn the trick when you are already a bit embarassed and flumuxed with an off site landing/door unlatched incident. Those extra distractors are the signs that you must now watch yourself very carefully. A real pro learns the way to tell himself NO as he sees these tiny hairs rise on his neck. Unusual things are to be carefully watched, and corners that you get jammed into are dangerous corners, indeed.

As long as the helo has been starting OK, just land, shut down, close the door (and look around at the whole helo, too) then climb in, restart and fly away. If you have regularly operated to idle and dismount, have a ball.

SASless

4th Feb 2006, 15:32

Golden advice Nick.....it never hurts to stop...take the time to smell the Roses then get back after it. If you are getting "pushed"...and making "small" mistakes....break the chain and start over before you make a "big" mistake.

Six feet under

4th Feb 2006, 19:19

If only life was simple.........
407 too's second post talks of the difference between legality and practicality. You try explaining that the accident happend "cos you only left the controls unmanned for a few seconds while you did whatever" and see how far it gets you in court.......

Do as my CFI told me to do. If you prang it and it's on fire, jump back in it. If it's not on fire, light it then jump back in it. ;)

I have seen a UH-1 with just one on board hot refuel with the machine at flight idle during fire fighting ops. He parked at an unmanned heliport next to the bowser, locked the controls at idle, then jumped out and hot-refuelled himself. Aslo saw a BK-117 do it at the same place for the same fire.

It seems the bigger the machine, the more inclined you are to leave the controls at idle. I don't know anyone who would do it in an R22 (even with an occy strap over the collective), but it seems safer in 206's and up. I guess the only time you wish you didn't do it was when the machine goes haywire, rolls over and blows up - all whilst you're standing in the bushes with your slug in your hand, now wishing you'd held on! :eek:

SFU

PPRUNE FAN#1

5th Feb 2006, 16:44

Helicopter pilots are such a bunch of worrywarts. Good grief, sometimes I wonder how some of you actually leave the house, so paranoid you seem about Bad Things happening. Do any of you actually fly? I mean in the real world, in real helicopters, not the kind generated by FS2004.

In my 10,000 hours...that's right, 10,000 hours in which much of that time was spent sitting between revenue flights at ground-idle, I cannot ever...that's right, ever remember a time when the idling engine suddenly accellerated itself. I can't ever remember a hydraulic servo "running away." (In fact, hydraulic hard-overs in 206's are just about unheard of.) I can't ever remember having the idling rotor disk do anything strange, even when larger helicopter landed right next to me. Oh, I'd grab the controls and "be ready," of course, and sometimes my helicopter has yawed a little, but I've never, that's right never had to pull the stick one way or the other to counter this fictitious and imaginary "blade sailing."

Yet we worry. We worry that our ship, which sat perfectly well on the dolly in the hangar before our flight, will now somehow tip over backwards simply because it's running without the weight of the pilot in the seat. We worry that haunted throttles will suddenly go to "full" or collectives with their own minds will raise or errant cyclics will clunk to a stop...or the machine will catch on fire (somehow spontaneously combust?). I guess we just like to worry.

Then again, there are the terminably stupid. I've known pilots who've gotten out of running helicopters without ensuring that their cyclics were properly frictioned (with predictably expensive results). I've known pilots who shut the engine down and then leapt like a Gazelle from the machine (not an SA-341, in this case) without ensuring that the throttle was completely closed and the fire had indeed gone all the way out...oops! And of course there is the true story of the hapless S-76 pilot in Los Angeles who got out to check a door but inexplicably left his ship running at full rpm (now there was a genius!). We are left to wonder whether he was actually surprised when it took off - or attempted to - without him. (We are also left to wonder why an S-76, ostensibly at flat pitch would lift off the ground? Perhaps someone with Sikorksy experience could explain that little malfunction. In every Sikorsky I've ever flown, if you left the collective friction or stick trim off the pole would fall to the floor like a dropped sledgehammer. So that's curious.)

Eons ago, in my capacity as a lineboy, I used to refuel a particular traffic-watch Bell 47 that regularly stopped in. The pilot was always in a hurry, and fueling operations began before the rotor even stopped (no brakes, remember), with me crouching under the whirling stabilizer bar. The bloke always wanted it topped-off, and you know those old saddle-tanks, no matter how careful I was being, petrol would inevitably slosh out, into the scupper and onto the hot engine with a loud PSSSSSSST!. This used to happen and I'd think to meself, "Is today the day I get blowed up to the high heavens?" Apparently not, for I am still here. Continued repetition of unsafe acts without accident does not render them safe of course, and I no longer engage in such foolishness. No, I let others refuel 47's right after they've shut down, thank you very much. Avgas? Egad!

Back to the point: Be safe, take the right precautions, and if your helicopter has never before done anything hinky at idle there is no reason to believe it will this time when you need to get out for two seconds to secure a door, take a leak, throw on a few extra gallons or whatever.

But worry on, mates, if fretting over the trivial makes you feel better.:rolleyes:

SHortshaft

6th Feb 2006, 00:30

Most people have a skeleton in a closet somewhere, and I have a couple too.

I once dismounted from a big Bell whilst it was running and walked around the nose to check the positioning of the left hand skid prior to shutting down…and the machine ‘moved on me’. I had just reached the nose of the helicopter when it started to pivot around the back of the left skid. The rocky terrain, the C of G shift when I got out, and probably a small gust of wind, were enough to start the whole sequence that ended up with the machine leaving its landing gear and squatting on its belly, in some unpleasant countryside hundreds of kilometers from anywhere.

That was many years ago. Every now and again, whenever I want to ‘beat myself up’, I take out the pictures to revisit the scene of the crime.

Have I ever dismounted rotors turning since then? You bet! Sometimes, after very careful consideration and with all things are considered (at least twice), I have decided it to be by far the best option… sometimes there is just no other viable option. However I am resigned to the fact that this is only as long as nothing goes wrong!! Otherwise it will be the worst decision I have ever made, as the company and the regulators will always determine that there was a better way.

If you can, shut down. If you can’t, look for a better place to land, move to somewhere where you can shutdown.

If, in your opinion, it is essential to dismount whilst the rotors are still turning be prepared to face the consequences, as it can go horribly wrong!!!

TheFlyingSquirrel

8th Jun 2006, 00:50

Which helos are approved for the pilot to exit the cab with rotors and engine running ?

Does any one practice this ?

imabell

8th Jun 2006, 01:16

all the time.

katismo

8th Jun 2006, 01:16

1. None of them.:=
2. Yes..., but NO.

John Eacott

8th Jun 2006, 02:17

TFS,

First, you will get as many replies as there are national aviation authorities! Australia is quite easy, go to casa.gov.au and look at CAO 95.7 (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9507.pdf).

EXEMPTION FROM GENERAL REQUIREMENT FOR PILOT TO BE AT CONTROLS

7.1 If the condition set out in paragraph 7.2 is complied with, a helicopter is exempt from compliance with subregulation 225 (1) (but not subregulation 225 (2)) and subregulation 230 (2) of the regulations.

7.2 The exemption given by paragraph 7.1, in relation to a helicopter, is subject to the condition that a pilot must, from the time of starting the engine or engines until the time of stopping the engine or engines at the end of the flight, be at the controls of the helicopter unless:
(a) the helicopter is fitted with skid type landing gear; and
(b) the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls; and
(c) if a passenger occupies a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls or is seated in a position where he or she is able to interfere with such controls, the controls are locked and the pilot is satisfied that the passenger will not interfere with the controls; and
(d) the pilot considers that his or her absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons on, or in the vicinity of, the helicopter; and
(e) the pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.

OK? :ok:

rotorboy

8th Jun 2006, 03:02

All the time. Often as a utility / bush pilot you have to fuel yourself, load yourself, hook up a load or simply take a piss.. shutting down costs you time

The FAR in the US reads similar to the one John quoted. It implies the pilot must have control of the helicopter. I still have control of the machine when I am fueling...

rb

ems300

8th Jun 2006, 03:10

all the time.
what is the point of shutting down just so you can get out and make yellow snow!!!
getting out with the machine going is done alot here, either to load people, re fuel, all of our flights we leave the machine for about 10 minutes! sometimes longer if the front seat is occupied by a hottie!!!:ok:

ppheli

8th Jun 2006, 04:30

Some years ago, a HeliPortugal pilot landed his MD500E, switched off and let the rotors run down of their own accord, presumably rotor brake not available/used. As he departed the helicopter, the weight change and the remaining inertia in the blades allowed the helicopter to take off again on its own, rising some way (dunno height, sorry) before coming back down by gravity and at an angle that meant the aircraft was a write-off. I bet he ran fast when he saw what was happening....

Perhaps the first UV helicopter crash?

Rotorchick

8th Jun 2006, 06:36

ZK-HFG, Eurocopter EC 120 B, 15 Apr 03 at 13:00,
Donne Glacier. 0 POB, injuries nil, damage
substantial. Nature of flight, transport passenger A
to A. Pilot CAA licence CPL (Helicopter), age 42
yrs, flying hours 7950 total, 12 on type, 122 in last
90 days.

The pilot and two passengers were on a “Milford Experience” flight, which included a lunch stop, glacier landing, beach landing and a landing at Milford. The normal glacier landing site was on the Tutuko Plateau, but because of cloud and wind conditions, an alternate site on the Donne Glacier was used.
The helicopter was landed on a rock outcrop on the south side of the glacier; power was reduced to ground idle, and cyclic and collective locks were applied. The pilot disembarked the passengers and was escorting them to the left front when the machine yawed to the right in a nose-high attitude before toppling over the side of the outcrop.:eek:
The pilot reported that it had been parked into the 10 to 15 knot wind, with the left skid firmly on the ground, and the rear only of the right skid likewise. :\

bellfest

8th Jun 2006, 06:52

bush pilot you have to fuel yourself
rotorboy
You're a brave man admitting to that:ooh:

(b) the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls;
John
I believe to the letter of the law here in Aus that doesn't include friction locks, bit of a grey area that one if you can believe that!

There is countless events of R22's taking aviation into their own hands with pilots forgetting to put the bunjy over the collective. Some very interesting stories there.

It amazes me that you can't get out of a machine on fixed floats. They do have a bit of give and the machine wobbles around a bit but for that very reason it is probably the most stable platform you could have.
Does that include fixed floats where the skid gear is in contact with the ground ie R44, H500?

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2006, 06:54

A little over ten years ago, at a NZ regional airport, I watched in disbelief as a middle-aged pilot left his Squirrel running on the grass, adjacent to a gate as he disembarked two pax plus luggage. I thought that was quite risky in itself, however he then carried the luggage through the gate next to the busy public car park, leaving it open, walked past my car, across to the terminal building and followed his pax inside.

After about ten minutes of his absence my son began began videoing the aircraft. After another five minutes I decided I didin't want to keep my family in the firing line if the rotor disc hit the tail boom (it was quite a gusty day) so I moved the car further away.

The pilot didn't return for about fifteen minutes. He then jumped in, threw the throttle forward and immmediately lifted to the hover, turning left and back as he did so, narrowly missing another helicopter hover taxying behind him.

I've always wondered if he got his Darwin Award... that year 10% of all NZ's civvy registered helicopters came to grief.

800

8th Jun 2006, 07:20

Some points to consider with reference to Australian document CAO 95.7

1. There has always been different views on the actual meaning of "locking" the cyclic and collective controls. What does the "locking" mean when talking about which devices do what and what was the original intention by the author?

2. Also the term "essential" when in the context of "essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons.
Some CASA FOI's deem refueling by the pilot with the rotors running not to be essential. As is to say it is an operational convience to not shutdown and not an essential requirement when put in context.

3. The definition of "immediate vicinity" when read in the context. What dimensions does this include?

Ask 10 CASA FOI's (if you can find them) the questions & you'll get 10 different opinions!
And then you'll walk away more confused! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

800

oldbeefer

8th Jun 2006, 07:24

Did hear a story years ago concerning a pilot of a Bell47 in Cyprus. Landed somewhere on Troodos, left it running and wandered off down the hill for some reason. Bell47 slid off the side of hill - this was seen by another sqn aircraft that was flying by. He landed and went to see what had happened to first aircraft. First pilot comes back up the hill, climbs in to rotors turning Bell 47 and flies back to base. Somewhat puzzled to find he was in a different aircraft. Perhaps some aging ex AAC pilot can confirm true or just a load of bo@@ocks!

robsrich

8th Jun 2006, 07:24

A recent ATSB report stated that from Jan 2000 to Jun 2005 - (that is five and a half years) there were 190 helicopter accidents from our say, 1,000 helicopters at that time.

Of the 190 lost, 90 were R22 and 10 R44.

One accident every ten days!

Four of the Robinson R22 fleet decided to go flying by themselves and leave the very unamused pilot pondering his next job!

From memory there may have been a couple of turbines - not sure until I re-look at the data.

I suspect it was worse in the preceding five years.

Trouble is; these are avoidable; and we all pay by extra premiums on the insurance policy.

This is passed onto the grumpy client who will probably use a truck if one could do the job?

Any ideas how we can stop this happening.

Any tips or observations?

JimL

8th Jun 2006, 10:01

If as the IHST have stated, they want to reduced the accident rate by 80% in the next 10 years, they might want do a psychological study of the mindset of pilots who use this practice.

There are accidents due to this and we have all seen them over the years but, more importantly, it points to an attitude of mind which we might have to consider when attempting to reduce the accident rate to the extent stated above.

It is no coincidence that this practice is deemed unacceptable in ICAO Annex 6 and other more responsible regulations.

Jim

Bravo73

8th Jun 2006, 11:47

bellfest

8th Jun 2006, 12:01

I know of a 3B1 that ran for at least 30 minutes outside the Aero club in Darwin while it's driver was savouring the schooners that much that he completely forgot about it till he was tapped on the shoulder:\ . This was the same man that ignored a refusal of clearance for reasons he was more than happy to let the tower and all other traffic know.
"My wife has just left me for another woman so I'm comin in whether you like it or not":{

BigMike

8th Jun 2006, 14:07

"If as the IHST have stated, they want to reduced the accident rate by 80% in the next 10 years, they might want do a psychological study of the mindset of pilots who use this practice.

There are accidents due to this and we have all seen them over the years but, more importantly, it points to an attitude of mind which we might have to consider when attempting to reduce the accident rate to the extent stated above.

It is no coincidence that this practice is deemed unacceptable in ICAO Annex 6 and other more responsible regulations."

Have you ever done bush flying Jim? Been in the middle of the desert by yourself re-fueling out of drums with the nearest settlement 300kms away? I can give you plenty more examples where I would not be at the controls.
Do in in strong winds, or for an extented period of time, no. It depends on the situation, and the location.
Helicopters do not fly away by themselves for no reason.

rotorboy

8th Jun 2006, 14:14

JimL

8th Jun 2006, 15:08

BigMike,

I have a little experience and have engaged in this practice myself (both in the military and as a civilian). My opposition to it stems from an incident that almost resulted in an accident some years ago - I learnt from that experience.

Apart from convenience, is there any reason why the engine would not be shut down for any of these activities? It is unlikely that any risk assessment (really the point I was attempting to make) would see this as an acceptable practice.

And yes, helicopters do 'fly away' on their own - or more accurately, crash whilst not under control.

Jim

Cyclic Hotline

8th Jun 2006, 15:40

Jim, can you provide the information that is contained in ICAO Annexe 6.

This contribution to aviation safety is not available for free on the Internet, which surely totally negates any potential safety benefit that might be derived from writing it in the first place.

I have never understood how inaccessible laws, rules or advisory information could have the slightest benefit, if they are not freely available to the people that might actually benefit from the information they contain. Maybe they all get together at cocktail parties and congratulate one another on their contribution to aviation safety?

(This comment is not directed at JimL, but is one of the things that really pisses me off!)

topendtorque

8th Jun 2006, 16:28

Bellfest
As I recall I heard that the A/C FSU comm went like this – “Darwin Darwin X Y Z, POB’s1, currently cruising 500 agl at xxxx request track direct Darwin.”

Now this is back in the days when there were radio men in the flight service unit outposts such as Darwin who were as well known and respected for their idiosynchrosies as were the pilots.

It’s Sunday afternoon and the FSU operator who knows said driver very well is out for some mischief to break the boredom. The reply came back, “why should I give you a track direct?”

‘Because I’ve been out bush for ten days without a beer and my wife’s left me for another woman!’

“X Y Z from current position - Darwin – track - DIRECT!”

The beer quaffing yes, often, said gentlemen was reported to move on to Tasmania and open a pushbyke shop just as Tassie passed legislation for pushbyke drivers to all wear helmets. Reckoned he was going to make a killing!!!!??

And a sober thought to wipe the grin off everyones face, his successor one day, his last day on this planet, left another 3B1 with the cyclic not frictioned but with hyd-off. Even if frictioned with hyd-off the feed back forces because of hyd-off are usually in excess of friction capacity in the bell 47.

He had his helmet on and whilst walking toward his near side litter with a coil of barb wire, about 40 kg’s, didn’t hear the whop until too late!

Always leave hyd-on and friction properly.

ShyTorque

8th Jun 2006, 16:30

BellFest,
Why is that brave when the proceudre is covered in the companys approved oeprating manual? Like BM said, ever been somewhere hunderds of KM from nowhere, where shutting down the helicopter wasnt the smartest idea. I can come up with a lot of reason why not to do it.
And I agree helicopters do not fly away by themselves. I find it hard to believe at ground idle, with frictions locked a machine will get off the ground.
rb

Unfortunately, helicopters don't even have to get airborne to cause a major accident to either the crew, the passengers or other bystanders. All it takes is a gust of wind to cause the rotor to flap and it's P45 time or hospital for someone at best.

Only if it was a choice between the aircraft not starting in a survival situation and there was no other option might I even consider it. As for planning to refuel AVGAS whilst running and unmanned - forget it, life is short enough as it is! I've always wondered what the actions should be if someone is foolish enough to attempt that and there is a fire........run, walk away thinking about the next employment, or stay inside the rotor disc, risking severe injury, death or burns and try to fight the fire and/or shut down the aircraft.....then think about the next employment :rolleyes:

JimL

8th Jun 2006, 16:57

Cyclic Hotline,

I totally agree with you that all important documents should be accessible.
Annex 6 Part 3 Section II Chapter 2:2.2.3.2 A helicopter rotor shall not be turned under power without a qualified pilot at the controls.
Jim

The Rotordog

8th Jun 2006, 20:00

Shy Torque notes: "Unfortunately, helicopters don't even have to get airborne to cause a major accident to either the crew, the passengers or other bystanders. All it takes is a gust of wind to cause the rotor to flap and it's P45 time or hospital for someone at best."

Not sure what types of ships you've been flying, Shy, but in 25 years and 10,000 hours I have never...as in *NEVER* had to grab the controls of my idling helicopter to keep the blades from doing something weird. I've flown offshore on days so windy that it makes Robbie pilots duck inside bomb shelters. In a previous life, I've been in a teeny 206 and had S-58's land next to me. The helicopter might have skidded a little about the yaw axis, but the blades never went anywhere but 'round and 'round.

But we're a paranoid bunch, aren't we! Even knowing that the rotor isn't going anywhere as long as the cyclic is immobilized, we still believe that as soon as we get out it's going to start dancing like a chick in a long dress at a Grateful Dead/Phish concert. Odd. Because the only way the disk is going to move is if the cyclic moves!

Getting out is not inherently dangerous if the necessary precautions are taken. But I will admit that it just "feels" strange to have a running helicopter and not be in it.

Okay mates, a challenge: Has *anyone* ever experienced a rotor excursion where you had to grab the controls and actually *do* something (other than hold on tight) with the cyclic? And I'm talking about when the helicopter was running at idle, not coasting down or spooling up.

Aser

8th Jun 2006, 21:36

http://www.telefonica.net/web2/asermartinezsomoza/OH-58D - Apache-downwash-incident.mpg
The helicopter might have skidded a little about the yaw axis...

:} :} :}

fostaire

8th Jun 2006, 21:59

I am having a hard time seeing everyones concern about the pilot closing the door on an operating 206. In the US at least, have a read of AC 91-32B, "Safety in and around helicopters" Even the FAA gives guidelines for just such operations. Some fixed wing inspectors have had elevated conversations with me about this until I enlighten them on the Agency written policy. I am especially sensetive about the "safety" aspect of pilots leaving the controls while rotors turning. Think about the risks of passengers boarding or disembarking from your aircraft with or without bags as you set studiously strapped at the controls while these untrained or even trained (executives) persons wander all around your operating rotors. At least while at the controls, the pilot can shut the engine down after the rotor/skull strike has happened. To me the obvious choice (single pilot) is for the the pilot to meet the pax at the rotor disk edge and have a quick brief and load the pax and secure all doors seat belts, and baggage stowed. Same applies for pax off load, everyone keeps their seats until escorted by the pilot safely away from the A/C with their bags.

Why not just shut down? This question obviously comes from persons NOT paying the maintenance bills. Turbine cycle retirement, starter/gen wear, 15 minute waiting period before initiating the restart for the reqd TOT drop, hot batteries, and hot starts. In the scenario first mentioned in this post, this would not have even happened if the crew had secured the doors personally before departure. Our policy is always PIC last in, first out hot or cold. I don't see, given the statistics any safer way.

B.T.W.,this is all based on Bell 206 series aircraft and Allison R/R powerplants. Twist grip to flight idle, frictions full on, into the wind, no ice/snow/mud surfaces. No policy is without its exceptions.

bellfest

8th Jun 2006, 22:09

rotorboy

I have been there and done that many times too it is just that it is a bit of a touchy one here and I wouldn't admit to it, but I just did:confused: If it is covered in your PM than disregard my comments and accept my apolagies:ok:

topendtorque

I suspect you are talking about Tevvy. I spent a bit of time with him and he was a true gentlemen. It was a crying shame that he met his fate like that.

I really don't think there is a great drama with leaving the controls if you are certain of the control security before you jump out. It has to be done.
I saw a pilot/engineer running an R22 and he jumped out and ran it up to 100% and walked around the back to feel the fan and that frightened the abselute bejeebers out of me. Taking the luxury a little too far.

imabell

8th Jun 2006, 23:31

the added (non factory) bungee cord or other collective locking devices developed for australian bush helicopters is the norm.

these devices are installed because the factory frictions are not strong enough to hold the collective down for extended periods.

we have to exit the machines regularly during the course of a normal working day to get or give directions from the ground crew and it is not practical to shut down during the more difficult stages of cattle mustering. we exit the helicopter about four times a day, rotors running.

when we used bells there was not such a big problem but robinsons collectives have a habit of rising if they are not held down. with the overcorrellation of the r22 throttle and the increase in rpm that follows a rising collective there have been a few instances of machines becoming airborne and flogging themselves to death.

people have forgotten to use these added devices and have suffered the conseqences but generally since their introduction the accident rate has dropped to nearly zero.

this is not a big deal.

7balja01

9th Jun 2006, 06:39

how is a gust of wind going to knock a helicopter over when the blades are flat against it (180degs)?

JimL

9th Jun 2006, 06:53

fostaire,
Why not just shut down? This question obviously comes from persons NOT paying the maintenance bills. Turbine cycle retirement, starter/gen wear, 15 minute waiting period before initiating the restart for the reqd TOT drop, hot batteries, and hot starts.
is one side of the calculation which can be used in the Risk Assessment of the practice. The second part of your paragraphIn the scenario first mentioned in this post, this would not have even happened if the crew had secured the doors personally before departure. Our policy is always PIC last in, first out hot or cold. I don't see, given the statistics any safer way.puts forward an argument for adequate procedures (mitigation) once the practice has been Risk Assessed and found to be necessary.

Look at the post by '800'
Also the term "essential" when in the context of "essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons". Some CASA FOI's deem refueling by the pilot with the rotors running not to be essential. As is to say it is an operational convience to not shutdown and not an essential requirement when put in context.
which appears to indicate that the first element is a Risk Assessment to establish whether this activity is "essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons". I would agree with '800' in his assessment of the FOI's thought process.

The problem is that, in this thread, there is already an assumption that it is necessary/safe; in my opinion fostaire, your economic factors do not balance the risks in an area where accidents have already occurred. I do however applaud you Risk Assessing the activity, which itself is a giant step beyond the argument that we do it so it must be necessary/safe.

You can rest assured that there has already been a Risk Assessment by a body of professional pilots when they formulated the text of Annex 6 -they (we) couldn't condone the practice. I would also argue that CASA did a similar exercise when they provided their regulations - but in their case the additional knowledge of their State's environment prevented prohibition; they therefore permit the responsible person to Risk Assess and decide. What they were not doing was to provide a carte blanche acceptance.

One of the issues with a bulletin board like PPrune is that whilst it is read by the professional pilot who feels confident in his/her training, experience and wisdom (a mixture of intelligence and experience), they are seldom persuaded into unsafe practices by the content. However, the same may not be true for the inexperienced, or the pilot in basic training who, because of their experience level, can be persuaded into unsafe practices.

If I wanted to leave a thought for the less experienced to ponder, it would be that the underlying issue here is one of understanding risk; knowing that there have been accidents and that this practice is frowned upon in Commercial Air Transport, try to understand why that is!

Jim

JayBee007

9th Jun 2006, 09:24

This was a common occurence in my early days. The following methods I used reduced this by up to 90% (1) I would ask who would like to be the nominated helicopter loadmaster at the destination. They would be in charge of putting the seatbelts inside and closing all the doors. This works well with English speaking pax. (2)Monitor the exit of pax, and if they looked like doing a runner before closing the door, I would give a long blast on my umpires' whistle. This was always loud enough for someone up to 10/15 feet away. Wave them back to the helicopter and get them to shut the door.
Then as a last resort I had no problems in getting out and closing the door myself.

BigMike

9th Jun 2006, 10:29

JimL, you had an incident and a bit of a scare, ok, tell us what happened.

You did not answer my question, have you ever worked in the bush/remote area? You seem to be saying because of what happened to you no one else should be doing it?
"Risk Assessment by a body of professional pilots" What was there background Jim, military with some local civilian flying and the North sea? Any of them worked the top end of Canada, remote area Africa or Australia? and I don't mean flying heavy machines with large crews. There seems to be the attitude on this forum that if the rules didn't originate from, or are not used by JAA, then they wrong/unsafe.

Helicopters do not fly away by themselves. There is a reason (collective not latched down on the R22 for example, or un-even ground in high wind, etc)
A 206 parked on flat ground is going to quite happily idle away until the fuel runs out, without going anywhere.

Heliport

9th Jun 2006, 11:13

There seems to be the attitude on this forum that if the rules didn't originate from, or are not used by JAA, then they wrong/unsafe.

Some people on the forum have that attitude - but not everyone, not even everyone from JAA countries.

The Brits are famous (notorious?) for their love of rules, and for being quick to criticise anyone who bends/breaks them. Maybe it's a result of operating under the UK CAA's heavily regulated regime where there are rules about almost everything? But not all Brits think that way.

Maybe some in Europe have the attitude you describe because most of the flying is so very different from operating in the parts of the world you mention?

Good discussion - great to see the different opinions.
Interesting to see if opinions relate to the sort of flying people have done and where they've done it.

rmcdonal

9th Jun 2006, 11:13

I don't know anyone who would do it in an R22 (even with an occy strap over the collective),
SFU
You need to get out more :}

MBJ

9th Jun 2006, 12:49

For years in the UK when I was operating Jetrangers I had it enshrined in my Ops Manual that the pilot could hop out rotors-running to usher in pax, check doors etc when necessary That died the death in the 90's when the CAA stepped on it. (Along with single-engine public transport night flying and so on!)

In a 206 land into wind on a flat grass surface where possible, screw on the frictions, come back to idle and don't kick the pedals/ cyclic climbing in and out. No problem.

Depends where you are I think, I certainly wouldn't shut down in the bush...or somewhere where a 4x4 can't get to you. A failure to restart (..and sH1t does happen) and you can be catapulted from Lord of the Skies into a survival situation.

What I wouldn't do is hop out of a running R44 at Epsom on Derby Day in front of a senior CAA man to have a chinwag with my mate in the next door (also running) helicopter!:ugh:

headsethair

9th Jun 2006, 13:59

What I wouldn't do is hop out of a running R44 at Epsom on Derby Day in front of a senior CAA man to have a chinwag with my mate in the next door (also running) helicopter!:ugh:

Think you may have misread the sit MBJ. We landed next to said gent - and one of us got out to ask him why he thought he could change into his morning suit whilst leaving his heli with engine and rotors running. (Have posted elsewhere on this.)

Once CAA approached he de-selected the clutch from outside the heli and waited for the engine revs to rocket until pulling the mix control. All done with his feet on terra firma and CAA watching.

He was no mate of ours!

paco

9th Jun 2006, 14:14

1000.A No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction or suggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to try or make or make an attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, in whole or in part of the herein mentioned Federal Aviation Regulations, except as authorized by the Administrator or an agent appointed by, or inspected by the Administrator.

1000.B If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, or realizes, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are or have been beginning to understand the Federal Aviation Regulations, they must immediately, within three (3) days notify the Administrator in writing.

1000.C Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impending comprehension, the Administrator will immediately rewrite the Federal Aviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any further comprehension hazards.

1000.D The Administrator may, at his or her option, require the offending pilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in Federal Aviation Regulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable of understanding anything.

Phil

Mama Mangrove

9th Jun 2006, 18:54

Things don't have to go wrong with the rotors.....
many, many years ago a pilot of a Mayne-Bristow Wessex 60 landed on a rig in Oz and shut down the starboard engine and rotor, leaving the port engine running with main drive disengaged. He nipped down for a quick pee, tea and sarnieee.... but imagine his horror when he returned some minutes later to discover that a fuel leak had caused his helicopter to catch fire :uhoh:
I operated in the bush in Africa for many years (yes, not just the boring drag out to offshore from Eket) but after that I always shut down to refuel from drums and mostlly to pick up pax as well (usually at the insistence of one of the clients). Always made sure that I called up base on HF so they knew where I was and approximately I'd shut down for (and in latter years we always carried a satellite phone of course). I've left the aircraft running a few times when single pilot, but only in times of really dire need, and always with frictions on (where fitted). Trouble is that in something like a 76 if you don't stop the rotor with one engine running, you could have a failure of the cyclic mag brake with rather nasty consequences (and yes despite what PPF#1 Fan says, I have had several mag brake failures :\ ).
So, even though I had nothing to do with JAA or FAA or CAA for many a long year, I have to agree with Jim L and say that you should carry out a short risk assessment and decide whether it really, truly is necessary to leave the rotors running and leaving your helicopter. There are circumstances in which it's justified as has been pointed out by many posters on this thread and I don't disagree with it being done....... but do thimk first about the things which could go wong, because sometimes, they just do :{

7balja01

10th Jun 2006, 06:01

i once saw an experienced pilot land his AS 350 on an oval at MT tamborine, gold coast hinterland in australia. he landed then throttled down somewhat, though the rotors were still moving very fast. he herded passengers on while they were spinning, they where inside while he was out, though they seemed to think he knew what he was doing.

was this irresponsible/illegal

bally.

800

10th Jun 2006, 08:06

If the pilot knew the regs & had conducted some sort of risk assessment (ie the pilot made a decision to do it) then the pilot could say it was "essential to the safety of the of the persons", when taken in the context quoted while complying with any other operational requirements!
ie SAVED
The pilot gets to fly another day.
Hey, got to know the rules to use the rules!:D :=
800

topendtorque

10th Jun 2006, 11:14

Heliport is onto one aspect. I wonder also do many of the posts relate to informed opinion of what others do. If they are not informed, they are not interested, if they are not interested, there’s the door – strong but life saving jungle talk.

ICAO rules are a reflection of the political weight that formed them; on this subject, way out of pace it seems with reality in everybody’s backyard. ICAO therefore needs purging, to regulate in conformance with reality. Those that quote ICAO should give over, take the blinkers off. There are many instances where leaving your place of employment in a hurry for safety sake is a reality.
Shutting down unnecessarily in a hostile remote environmet is also stupid.

Often when mustering it was imperitive to be back in the air very quickly when refuelling or risk losing control of your task.

However to adopt the practice of seat departure in any air transport op, or say fire fighting ops where everything is laid on with equipment, manpower etc after many deliberations on SOP’s months before has obviously got to be questionable.

ICAO rules should reflect the imperatives of the different environments to protect their constituents.

There are a couple of pertinent points
1) as per Eacott's quote of the OZ CAO 95.7 (immediate vicinity) this does not mean as Shy quoted, about some dude retiring to the latte’ society for a recharge whilst Rotors are still in motion (RIM).
Neither does it mean walking around Fox Glacier to look at the view having just descended from the 1 million dollars worth of viewmaster machinery?? - Bloody hell. !! And on an RPT tourist flight into the bargain!!

2) Mr Bally has hit on another and I’ll put it to bed as well as him because I could be on a mission to tuck him in on another thread.

Bally you say,
“How is a gust of wind going to knock a helicopter over when the blades are flat against it (180degs)?”

I’ll not be disappointed if you answer in the negative when I ask did you ever get taught to lean the disk into wind a bit if there is a storm coming and to always park the machine off-line the incoming storm wind 15 degrees so as when blade sailing occurs during shutdown you don’t cut the tail off. The reason I’m not surprised if you say no, is because I know of an identical case recently in an R22 where that happened. The 3000 hour pilot was simply not told of the phenomena and didn’t have the scone to work it out.

But Bally what is it that we do all day, lift the collective and select the desired direction with the cyclic?
Well yes, but really we are varyibg the A of A on the blades. To first slip the surly bonds of earth we lift the collective for symmetrical lift.

When we move the cyclic in the desired direction we are altering the A of A of the blades in each half of the disc to create a dissymmetry of lift and thus create a thrust moment toward the desired direction? Operating the throttle during these sequences is to replace power used in the manoeuvres to maintain RPM as we compensate with more collective and or pedals.

Now let’s go to your bit about the ‘gust of wind with blades flat against it.’

Remember the references to landing in Wolf Crater, “the wind was blowing straight down”? Ever been in northern OZ during the build-ups when you can often look out the window and see the tree leaves all pointing straight down, or for that matter ever stood on an ocean jetty with a prevailing sea current and wondered why most of the time all the water is going the wrong way? No? I didn’t think so! Obviously at times when the wind is going straight down there are other times when it is going straight up, or any other which way!

A wind forecast is merely an ‘expression’ of the time that it is estimated that two differing atmospheric pressures may tend to equalise, expressed as a wind velocity and direction. Of course they never do and neither is any of the close to ground interferences ever accounted for in that forecast. As low level pilots we have to think of that and we encounter these ‘situations’ hundreds of f’n times every day, especially when we park our machine with RIM facing into a gusting wind that can and does vary continuously, thus changing the A of A on the blades continuously.

Bally, let’s take another small step. Let’s say you’re in a light helicopter; its flat pitch power requirement is say 13”. You take off at daylight, yourself and full fuel and gee whiz you only need another 8-9” to get off the ground. At the end of the day, temps are about the same, you’re in a hurry to close a gate behind the cattle, you’re just about out of fuel, that is, suddenly there is 400 pound less in the machine compared to take off with full tanks this morning, it’s sitting at flat pitch, blades level, you left the RPM inadvertently at operating RPM, collective is locked down and the bloody wind gusts upwards over the little rise in front of you and hey presto, the helicopter nose is climbing.
Note two things;
a) In a Bell 47 one inch equals 100 pound, straight up, and
b) It takes stuff all wind to turn a big powerful windmill.

Compensated power is not an issue, as the damage is done and RPM simply decays now as the machine lifts, unless of course you are in a Robinson with those idiot electric governors and you like an idiot left it switched on, then they just fly higher before crashing.

So, Bally at your expense I have finally isolated an anomaly in CAO 95.7, it refers to something that we have always done.

What should be included is a section to detail that the rotors should always be set well below operating RPM and therefore not capable of generating enough lift to lift the empty machine when the pilot is to get out. They should not just be - at flight idle - which might be interpreted as operating RPM with the throttle under the detent.

If that and a Governor-off requirement for the Robinsons are included in 95.7 it may help blokes like you as it should then have been included in a training sequence.

Thanks mate you’ve been a great help, oh, and in the future, think!

Mama Mangrove

10th Jun 2006, 12:22

tet,
Before you bite bally's head off again look at his profile and his previous posts - he's not a pilot, he's a schoolboy, so judge him not too harshly lest ye yourself be harshly judged one day. :E
Apart from that I liked your post :ok:

topendtorque

11th Jun 2006, 09:48

Mama.
Mon dieu! ~ Point Taken ~ Merci.
I have now checked, I guess I was lulled into a false sense of his knowledge and experiences by his quote or exercise in hole digging (below) found in another thread, which I’ve addressed over there.

“friday-saturday party too much alcohol. your right though, i did say something stupid. the adf is the best in the world, we even taught the americans how to fight during vietnam. i guess i was just upset after watching the gangs in dili with the aussies not capable of doing much. answered by fire on the abc, backs that up back in 1999. notice the gov't didnt help the timorese for 25 yrs until they realised timor was just a stepping stone for the indonesians.”

No doubt if / when young bally becomes a legislator he will have plenty of answers.

Regarding the thread:-
Today was another typical seven hour low level uncomfortable experience. Big highs have kicked in down south meaning at a hover - er - stationary position at 100 feet the ASI indications over every ten second cycle go down to zero and up to 32 knots.
Power reqd for that with the governor off is fairly steady at 18 inches. With the governor on the MAP indicates something totally abhorrent to me, a St Vitas dance of fury for the whole drivetrain, oscillating between 15” and 21” several times in that cycle. Someone please tell me these governors are good for the aircraft!
Economy was @ 25 lts/hr, 11% less fuel burn than usual and being light on the seat every ten minutes or so is the norm. A bit like being dumped by the breakers, certainly no place for an unattended little R22 on the ground at full RPM!

However, small beer compared to many other jobs!

7balja01

12th Jun 2006, 01:21

thanks topendtorque,

as youve just found out, im no pilot- but every bit off info you give me gets me one step closer to stealing a robby from the local aerodrome...:E

actually thanks for enlightening me on the whole:" how can a gust of wind blow a helicopter over when the blades are 180degs" thing.

CHEERS!

bally.:}

Aucky

13th Dec 2010, 23:26

Hi Guys, just wondering if it's normal, or considered ok to leave a helicopter running unmanned on certain types, or in certain parts of the world??

Granted I leave my car running when I get forget something, and it never drives off by itself, but something looks odd with regards to a chopper rotors running, unmanned. I know it's unlikely to take-off by itself (unless it's that r22 from last year), but i know some aircraft are fitted with control locks as opposed to frictions etc... Just wondering if it's common practice in some locations/types? It's not something i've seen done in my time here in the UK.

WxObELla8Ns

Aucky

Edit: not sure what the insurance company would say if it crashed itself :eek:

chopperchappie

14th Dec 2010, 13:34

Surely you wouldn't want to get out of any vehicle and leave it running in any of the following postcodes;

BS (Bristol)
M (Manchester)
L (Liverpool)
SW (SW London)
etc. etc.

:ok:

fostaire

14th Dec 2010, 15:02

We as pilots must ALWAYS weigh the risks of our behavior. I have operated helicopter in the USA for about 34 years and know other countries have regulations that differ from ours. However, is it more dangerous to allow untrained personnel to approach a running (Bell, what I operate) helicopter than to have the pilot meet them at the rotor tip, brief them, and board them? The FAA has, years ago, published a document on just this subject matter, along with other subjects. Read AC 91-32B, specifically paragraph 7. sub C.. To those that ask about runaway turbines, hydraulic hardovers, ect. I say: "If I thought that way, I would never leave my bedroom." Sure they all can happen, so we may also die on the way to work, but a calculated risk management program will always go the path of least risk. For me, it is to have positive control of the passengers above the risk of a VERY RARE mechanical malfunction. Shuttiing down to latch a door in a remote area is also a greater risk than USING PROPER PROCEDURES of securing the A/C at idle, frictioning the controls, and closing the door! (PS, if you had disembarked the pax in the first place, the door would NOT have been unlatched?) These points don't take into account the turbine cycles, risk of hot start, battery relay failure, starter/gen failure. Of course these malfunctions would only be considered if you are the type person always looking for the worst case scenario. Other types of helicopters may not be as equipped to allow this operation, and the environment may also dictate not leaving the controls. In the end, it is up to you, the PIC to make the decision for that specific situation, constantly be a risk evaluator, and NEVER let your guard down!

CorsAir2

30th Sep 2016, 13:26

Hi all!
I guess all of you will agree with me: a pilot leaving an helicopter with both engine and rotor turning is never a safe action! :ooh: But what would be the legal consequences, if any, as a result of such reckless behavior, regardless whether it occours as a result of an accident or not?

Just seen on the tube: Mera Peak helicopter (but it isn't the only!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfQ41CVuk0M&feature=player_embedded

GfQ41CVuk0M

Devil 49

30th Sep 2016, 14:07

Safe?... What is "safe"? A complete absence of hazard? Not possible or desirable.
One wants to minimize hazard and avoid unnecessary risk. If the helo is securely on deck, set at appropriate ground idle and controls secured against movement, does the PIC increase hazard by leaving the cockpit and surveying the landing area? Some operators think that's a bad idea, some have explicit requirements to allow it. I want the option, was taught the proper methods of doing so by the US Army.

Not a legal expert, but I believe the pilot and employer assume all responsibility for helicopter operation, including while the pilot is not at the controls,

belly tank

30th Sep 2016, 14:10

With all due respect...I do not agree with you Corsair...."Reckless!?" I don't see any issue here at all as the 350 has both Cyclic and Collective frictions and locks.

I have done it a thousand times myself in a previous life ,as have many others here on this forum.

I always have remained within the immediate vicinity of the machine to load pax / freight in a remote area which the regs and company SOP'S allow us to do.......different story if you left the machine and strolled away a few hundred metres for a pee or a smoke.

FH1100 Pilot

30th Sep 2016, 15:01

You guess wrong, CorsAir2.

Gordy

30th Sep 2016, 16:12

Yep, you guess wrong Corsair2.

It is still common practice in many parts of the US and is carried out under provisions provided by the FAA.

rotarywise

30th Sep 2016, 16:43

carried out under provisions provided by the FAA.Unfortunately, such provisions do not apply in Europe. CAT.GEN.MPA130, NCC.GEN.125 and NCO.GEN.120 all say the same thing:

"A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls"

I've done it plenty of times in the past but will think more than twice about doing it in the future. We can argue the semantics but it will be a difficult time at the inquest if it all goes t1ts up while you're outside the aircraft.

casper64

30th Sep 2016, 16:52

What about a governor runaway, a drive-shaft failure, engine fire, etc, etc. Sure, the chance of it happening are slim, but when it happens, YOU are responsible and not able to respond. I fully agree with the European rules on this one!

Michael Gee

30th Sep 2016, 17:05

Maybe the pilot thought it might not start again in the remote location. It has happend !

jeepys

30th Sep 2016, 18:24

I think there are many factors to consider and what may be deemed safe in one type is not safe in another.
Other factors to consider is weather. Would you leave a helo running in high winds with gusts?
Unfortunately there are a number of pruners that know of NB who died after being struck by his helo blades.
Not something I will be doing because if something goes wrong it's never going to be pretty and likely to result in serious injury or fatalities.

CorsAir2

30th Sep 2016, 18:30

Thanks to all for the answers!

Let me to specify the contest: I'm actually employed as flight instructor in Europe. After discussing similar videos proposed to me by some students, I gave to all of them specific order to avoid adopting such behavior according to Robinson 22 Safety Notice 17 and to EASA provisions (mentioned above by rotarywise) for their future employment in other helicopters. I personally never left the pilot seat while performing solo flights with rotors engaged-engine idle and no one of my flight instructors in the past were favorable about the issue.

So, are you still really sure that a similar action could be considered an acceptable habit?

What would you say to your students about it?

Nubian

30th Sep 2016, 19:02

Read the answers given to you. There are different regs in Europe and the US for instance and in the latter it is allowed. So, in Europe you teach your students NOT to do this as it is against rules. Then let the pilots operating under regs allowing this to do their thing.

I spend most of my 6-700 hours per year in the h/v curve in doing precision longline work. During my flightraining I was taught to stay out of the h/v curve. Is my line of work a bad practice then?

newfieboy

30th Sep 2016, 19:54

Common practice in Canada. It's in our ops manual,totally legal, idle, frictions on, we are able to hot refuel, load freight, pax etc. No way am I shutting down for fuel on the likes of Baffin Island, in polar bear country at -40c and a good chance no human habitation within 100's of miles. Very lonely feeling hauling up to Alert in probably some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world. I probably see no reason in the UK or Europe to be hot refuelling rotors turning, but Utility in Canada yes for sure as long as it's done safely.
Same as Nubian, most my 15500+hrs on the end of a longline in the HV curve. Can be done safely as long as you always have a plan and an out if it all goes Pete tong....

chopjock

30th Sep 2016, 20:02

rotarywise
"A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls"

All that means is only a qualified pilot may fly the aircraft!
Obviously if the blades are turning for the purpose of flying, you need a pilot in there or it won't fly properly.
However if the blades are turning with no pilot at the controls, clearly the purpose is not to fly!

whoknows idont

30th Sep 2016, 20:18

rotarywise

All that means is only a qualified pilot may fly the aircraft!
Obviously if the blades are turning for the purpose of flying, you need a pilot in there or it won't fly properly.
However if the blades are turning with no pilot at the controls, clearly the purpose is not to fly!

Interesting point. After all, it is legal under EASA regs for engineers (or whoever for that matter) to perform ground runs as long as he or she is designated by the operator and properly qualified. No pilots licence required (by law, might be by operators procedures).
However, if you keep the helicopter running for hot-refuelling, pax movement or what not, one might argue that it's still running for the purpose of subsequent flight.

chopjock

30th Sep 2016, 20:31

"A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls"

Except there is no "subsequent" in front of the word "flight."

GoodGrief

30th Sep 2016, 21:12

Try restarting an Allison engine at 12k MSL and +20°C. You'll wait for about 90 minutes before you can hit the button...:{

[email protected]

30th Sep 2016, 21:54

God knows we have been around this buoy several times in the past and never come to any agreed conclusion.

There are some places in the world where keeping it turning and burning is the most efficient and expeditious answer since a failure to restart would be a major problem for rescue.

Equally, there are some operations in some parts of the world that use this technique because it is easy - not because it is safe or proper but just because it is easy.

There is a sliding scale between these two points which is open to discussion - depends very much on your viewpoint and need to adopt such a practice.

Thomas coupling

30th Sep 2016, 22:40

Illegal under EASA....the end. Is there life outside europe?

newfieboy

30th Sep 2016, 23:27

Agree with crab....
Horses for courses . It's called using common sense.

mickjoebill

1st Oct 2016, 00:06

"A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls"

So an unlicensed passenger can legally take the controls to do an auto in the event of an engine failure?:)

Mickjoebill

SASless

1st Oct 2016, 01:46

It all gets back to the Rules/Regulations/SOP/OpsManual that apply at the time and place. I always added....a thing called commonsense...and only did it when it was the best right answer.

A hundred miles from the nearest warm abode....OAT -30F...snow falling...wind blowing.....and you need to pump fuel by hand....no radio contact with anyone.....darn sure no cell phone coverage....and you are going to shut down that Jetbox or Hughes 500 and run the risk of the Engine starting again?

Errr.....I think not!

Vertical Freedom

1st Oct 2016, 03:11

Oooow those of little knowledge........................are bloody dangerous :mad:

Exiting whilst turning & burning is an approved SOP in the Ops Man in many Countries, including the extended Himalayas. It reduces time on the ground :ooh: Increases the urgency to GO for those on-ground :8 Did You notice the weather coming in on the Video? Doooh :8 by the way that is not Mera but Khote village H :=

Have You CA2 ever tried starting a machine above 20,000' or below zero with any serious altitude? :uhoh: CA2 I sure as shiiit wouldn't wanna be learning from You as my instructor as there ain't much in your 'bag of wisdom' :( next time You land on a remote pinnacle with weather rolling in & a MedEvac Rescue to do; by all means shut down, light up a fag, order a cuppa tea & see the beauty of the clouds roll in as Your Patient dies gagging, drowning in their own blood from Altitude-Sickness :eek:

CA2 please try & think outside the box Mate & find out the right reasons things are being done the way they are........after over 29 years of flying, 10 years in the Mountains; exiting whilst Rotors-Running well over 3,000 times has served me a great benefit in getting the job done safely & expeditiously :) (note: without incident)

Happy Landings & never loose ETL unless Your slinging, aerial working, or on short final to land :ok:

paco

1st Oct 2016, 04:59

My own take is a middle way. In a place like a staging area, people around, etc. I will shut down to refuel, although a more positive approach would be to teach the first aid guy to hot refuel - he's just sitting around reading novels anyway. I certainly won't leave the cockpit for the convenience of the customer (in my experience, the most inconvenient solution is the safest).

Baffin island? As Newfieboy says, up there, and with similar places mentioned above, especially with a dodgy battery, it becomes more acceptable.

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you necessarily should do it.

CRMI hat off! :)

Phil

whoknows idont

1st Oct 2016, 05:18

However if the blades are turning with no pilot at the controls, clearly the purpose is not to fly!

Except there is no "subsequent" in front of the word "flight."

Great. For which reason is it then turning under power, if not for flight? :rolleyes:
Try coming up with something reasonable that would convince the EASA bureaucrats.
Easy prey for any lawyer if the **** hits the fan, or in this case vice versa.
What TC said.

RVDT

1st Oct 2016, 06:53

"A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls"

So anyone can turn the rotor under power if they have no intention of going flying?

Of course. Engineers ground running etc. No problem.

The issue to be careful of is if the RFM prohibits as in the case of AS350 models which is different depending on the model. (please check as results may vary)

Pretty sure anything up to a B2 is OK and B3's with a more modern RFM sez NO.

If the RFM sez NO your Ops Spec/Manual cannot override it.

Technically to override it you would probably need an STC!

John Eacott

1st Oct 2016, 11:02

Gee, the old crewroom antics of second guessing legalese!

Undoubtedly the vacating of running helicopters is allowed in some places, not in others. Certainly we've been here before in discussing it, and the Antipodes allows pilots to leave a running helicopter under certain conditions including skid only, lockable flying controls and required for safety reasons. Never seen or heard of it being a serious issue when complied with under those terms.

212man

1st Oct 2016, 12:01

After 17 years signed up on Pprune I can safely say I've learned the meaning of 'groundhog day'!

Soave_Pilot

1st Oct 2016, 12:11

I have done it many times, and when needed will do it again. I don't see any problems doing it, with all precautions taken of course (locked controls, HYD OFF, wind conditions, etc...)

Which one is safer considering landing on remote areas? let pax in and out of the aircraft with the risk of walking into the TR? Or properly securing the controls and guide them out of the aircraft?

SASless

1st Oct 2016, 12:17

Brother Eacott....please to remember there is no helicopter flying outside the UK and no authority but the CAA. Oh, sorry....Europe and EASA unless Brexit changes all that....but you get my drift I assume.

The more pedantic of the UK Crowd presume to lecture the rest of the World as though they have the One True Word when it comes to flying Helicopters all the while failing to realize some problems for their diatribe.

(Bold Print added so the non-Pedantic in the UK understand the target of my comments)

With no hill higher than 4,000 feet and max temps never much above Jumper level and underslung work a rare thing and fire fighting all but non-existent....they tell us all about that kind of work. They have a very limited Helicopter EMS industry, do scant hell-logging, no Christmas Tree lifting, and no Banner carrying.

But....by God...they will sure tell you how you are doing it wrong!

I have heard it said..."Teach a Brit to do something today....and tomorrow he will tell you how to do it!".

When it comes to this leaving a running helicopter thing....that adage sure rings true.

John Eacott

1st Oct 2016, 12:26

Careful, SAS: I'm a retread Pom and my first licence was a UK CAA ATPL.

But I've moved on a little bit http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif

nigelh

1st Oct 2016, 13:36

I think you nailed it there Sas !! ( UK but with FAA ticket ...loving the ability to fly loads of different machines with no ratings .....Bliss !! )

SASless

1st Oct 2016, 13:44

Eacott....you did move on....and are not of the Pedantic sort....Oz has a way of grinding that out of Pom's who decide to stay a while. Pom's, in the true usage of the word, are the ones with the rough edges unlike the Australians they so frequently accuse of having.:E

Do I imagine it or do those of us with multiple National ATPL's seem to be a bit more open minded about seeking the Universal Truth of Helicopter Flight?

handysnaks

1st Oct 2016, 16:41

Now, now SAS, Scotland has 9 'mountains' that tower mightily above 4000 ft ��
It is till in the UK at the moment!

JerryG

1st Oct 2016, 19:56

Hand up. Been there, done that, got away with it on prime time UK TV. Probably not in these litigious days though.

(at 6:20)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1KoMkHV34

vJ1KoMkHV34

Thomas coupling

1st Oct 2016, 20:17

Bet you still look the same Jerry!

For those of you who enjoy life on the edge:

Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-540137.html)

http://airbushelicoptersinc.com/images/safety/Ground-Ops-Pilot-at-Controls.pdf

John Eacott

1st Oct 2016, 21:17

Great. For which reason is it then turning under power, if not for flight? :rolleyes:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8062-2/look_+no+blades.JPG

John Eacott

1st Oct 2016, 21:24

Hand up. Been there, done that, got away with it on prime time UK TV. Probably not in these litigious days though.

Where would you be without the jacket & stripes? :cool:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7336-1/Jerry+G+and+To+The+Manor+Born.jpg

RVDT

2nd Oct 2016, 02:13

JE,

and the Antipodes allows pilots to leave a running helicopter under certain conditions including skid only, lockable flying controls and required for safety reasons.

Not all the Antipodes - the NZ CAA has taken a few to task over the RFM requirement overriding the exemption that some hold.

ersa

2nd Oct 2016, 02:33

Not many helicopters with lockable cyclic controls, frictions don't count :)

haihio

2nd Oct 2016, 05:53

Flying and landing in remote areas of SE Asia (jungle). When I land I put the engine ( or engineS) to idle, frictions on and I'm the first One to get out to open the pax doors and get their baggage out.
I do this cos passengers don't know how to open and more importantly close the doors again specially the cargo door. I cannot take off again if I haven't personally checked that all doors are PROPERLY closed.
Also, I make sure that no one walks towards the spinning tail rotor and I give them a clear way to walk away from the helicopter.
I think any other pilot with average common sense would do the same given the circumstances.
I am particularly sensitive to this matter because a few years ago one of my course mates killed him self When his helicopter took off without him at the controls.

whoknows idont

2nd Oct 2016, 05:53

John, please don't take this out of context. I was referring to the following.
However if the blades are turning with no pilot at the controls, clearly the purpose is not to fly!

This thread is about the pilot landing, exiting without shut-down (for whatever reason), then getting back in and taking off again.
One can't seriously wrap this up as maintenance ground-run.

Rotarywise was just stating that EASA unfortunately clearly prohibits such action.

I'm not saying that it never makes sense to do so. Just that is not legal under EASA.

Old Farang

2nd Oct 2016, 06:07

Well, although I no longer fly, I have to agree with Vertical Freedom, and have also done it many times. Take a look at the video the OP posted. This is a perfect example of why it is banned in some places! Why oh why did the pilot not turn the nose to face the SLF before he set it down? From what can be seen in the video he could have also hung the TR over the back edge of the pad, as demonstrated many times previously in Vertical Freedoms posts.

John Eacott

2nd Oct 2016, 10:21

JE,
Not all the Antipodes - the NZ CAA has taken a few to task over the RFM requirement overriding the exemption that some hold.

Nonetheless, the NZ CAA allow the action: whether the pilot/operator is later 'taken to task' for non compliance is a risk they take.

chopjock

2nd Oct 2016, 11:24

whoknows
This thread is about the pilot landing, exiting without shut-down (for whatever reason), then getting back in and taking off again.
One can't seriously wrap this up as maintenance ground-run.

The rule does not need to mention "maintenance", as that is just one example of why it happens.

If you interpret the rule exactly, then if no pilot is at the controls, the purpose is not to fly.
A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…

Great. For which reason is it then turning under power, if not for flight?

Perhaps the pilot is taking a pi55 and simply does not want to fly "at the moment", so no need to be at the controls until the purpose is to fly…at which point he will then be at the controls. :rolleyes:

SASless

2nd Oct 2016, 11:53

The key issue is the risk the Helicopter might go fly without the Pilot.

Control that risk adequately and Robert is your Mom's Brother.

NickLappos

2nd Oct 2016, 14:49

Exit after frictioning of controls on an idling helicopter was taught to every US Army helicopter pilot back in the day. Standard practice.
Why? As many have alluded, assuring a restart can be problematic in cold harsh climes, and little risk exists with controls effectively locked.

I am also not sure that quoted European regulation forbids the practice - "A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls". It specifically uses the the phrase "be turned" in the context of starting, and not in the context of steady state. Is there specific guidance that describes it as universal? Were it phrased "while turning" I'd think it iron clad.

SASless

2nd Oct 2016, 15:03

Why would the use of "Friction" devices not meet the requirement for "Locks"?

Knowing too many Fixed Wing Rules and concepts have been applied to Rotorcraft by Authorities.....could the "Control Locks" thinking really be an evolution of "Gust Locks" that are mechanical devices that stop the movement of flight control surfaces rather than the flight controls themselves?

If you apply sufficient friction there is no moving of the controls without a lot of force being required.

I suppose one would have to differentiate between commonsense definitions and approved definitions codified within an Authority's Legal Definitions such as Part One of the US FAA FAR's.

The UK Contingent loving complex application of rules, regs, laws, etc with over lapping jurisdictions should be able to enlighten us on how they approach such matters.

whoknows idont

2nd Oct 2016, 16:20

whoknows

The rule does not need to mention "maintenance", as that is just one example of why it happens.

If you interpret the rule exactly, then if no pilot is at the controls, the purpose is not to fly.
A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…

Perhaps the pilot is taking a pi55 and simply does not want to fly "at the moment", so no need to be at the controls until the purpose is to fly…at which point he will then be at the controls. :rolleyes:

Sorry chopjock, I really don't get your reasoning here. If you don't want to fly "at the moment", why do you leave it running then? Burning off excessive fuel?
By your logic the whole rule would be obsolete because it's already stated elsewhere that there needs to be a suitably licensed pilot at the controls during flight.

ShyTorque

2nd Oct 2016, 17:01

(locked controls, HYD OFF, wind conditions, etc...)

Please tell us poor amateurs how you do this on helicopters with more than one hydraulic system?

I can fully understand why in some scenarios such as extreme climate or remote sites, the risk of leaving the controls whilst disembarking pax is less than the problems caused by a stranded heli (but in many cases I suspect it's used as an excuse to get home to the pub quicker) but if leaving pax there anyway it would be difficult to say one's life was in danger in many cases.

I used to have a video of a NZ pilot who left his AS350 burning and turning at idle and totally unmanned for twenty minutes. He disembarked his passengers, carried their bags off the airfield and escorted them through a busy public car park, leaving the access gate unlocked and unguarded. As we were on the nearest row of the car park I moved my car containing my kids some distance away. He eventually re-appeared in a casual fashion, got back in, whacked the engine up to fly and immediately lifted off. He moved very rapidly left and almost collided with another helicopter hover taxying behind him. He "quick stopped" so harshly the tail of his Squirrel almost hit the ground.

An international airport is hardly a remote region and at the time I possibly did say something along the lines of slightly doubting his professionalism.

chopjock

2nd Oct 2016, 17:38

whoknows
If you don't want to fly "at the moment", why do you leave it running then?

Because I may want to fly "in a minute". There could be any number of reasons. Perhaps to avoid another start / stop cycle count during a short period on the ground, or doing lots of short trips and you need to get pax out the back, or maybe just landing and you need a pi55, perhaps to supervise hot refuelling, maybe having to load your own cargo net, perhaps you have an oil leak and you want to check for drips with the engine running, in fact any reason you may be landing somewhere for only 5 minutes or so and you need to get out, what's the point of shutting down if you don't have the time to wait before you can start up again? What if it won't start and you are on the beach at low tide?

I can only presume you also always shut down when you land, otherwise what's the purpose of landing eh?

I suppose I could ask you what's the reason for landing then if you don't shut down?

whoknows idont

2nd Oct 2016, 18:30

Because I may want to fly "in a minute".

Ok, so clearly the helicopter is burning&turning FOR THE PURPOSE OF FLIGHT.

All the good reasons for doing so make it an operation that requires either ground crew or additional air crew for safest possible execution. Or at least to make it an EASA conform operation.
Yet another cost effectiveness vs safety discussion in the end.

Just take a low-timer for the ride and he can hold the stick while you are relieving yourself, no pun intended.

SASless

2nd Oct 2016, 18:45

Why would One wish to turn a Flight Control Hydraulics System "Off" to begin with?

Example is the Jetbox....turn the hydraulics off and the Stick can be motored by Feedback forces. Same on the venerable Huey.

chopjock

2nd Oct 2016, 19:19

whoknows
Ok, so clearly the helicopter is burning&turning FOR THE PURPOSE OF FLIGHT.

But not yet, so it's not for the purpose of flight until the pilot gets in and opens the throttle!

whoknows idont

2nd Oct 2016, 19:28

Right... I like your logic, chopjock.

A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…

Jelico

2nd Oct 2016, 21:31

I think the "Hydraulics Off" idea comes from the Robby world. Theory being that the collective doesnt rise when the hydros are switched off. At least thats what I was told when I did my rating a few years back. A fair few of the R44's here in NZ have a collective lock on them that helps mitigate the risk of a fly-away.

I have a question for the eurocopter guys.. With a squirrel (or twin squirrel in my case), will the machine be able to lift off with both engines at ground idle when empty? Seems to me that the collective lock is easy knocked off.

John Eacott

2nd Oct 2016, 22:26

After 17 years signed up on Pprune I can safely say I've learned the meaning of 'groundhog day'!

That's for sure :p

http://www.netanimations.net/Groundhog-peeking-out-hole-animation.gif

LRP

2nd Oct 2016, 23:34

I remember exiting an OH-23D in a confined area on many occasions with the throttle at idle to lay out sticks and cow chips. Anyone else?

SASless

2nd Oct 2016, 23:58

TH-55 for me.....68-9 and 68-11.

Soave_Pilot

3rd Oct 2016, 01:46

Why would One wish to turn a Flight Control Hydraulics System "Off" to begin with?

Simply by the fact pax ( or even the pilot!!) may hit the controls while boarding or leaving the helicopter, (yes, with dual controls installed) and some helicopters also creep up the collective on ground running

vaqueroaero

3rd Oct 2016, 04:30

In the Bell 206 series and 407 if you think that by turning off the hydraulics you are locking the cyclic and collective in place you are sorely mistaken.....

Nubian

3rd Oct 2016, 07:19

Soave,

Pax in a seat with dual's installed is also not allowed in EASA land...

chopjock

3rd Oct 2016, 10:54

Nubian

Pax in a seat with dual's installed is also not allowed in EASA land...

I don't think so. It may be an opps manual limitation only, iaw an AOC.
Certainly does not apply to private flying as far as I know...

Soave_Pilot

3rd Oct 2016, 11:19

In the Bell 206 series and 407 if you think that by turning off the hydraulics you are locking the cyclic and collective in place you are sorely mistaken.....

I never said hyd off would lock the controls, indeed, if it did the helicopter probably wouldn't be certified with single hydraulics. Turning off the hydraulics and the frictions on, would definitely help prevent unwanted movements of the controls.

Devil 49

3rd Oct 2016, 13:00

The AS350/355 series collective lock should not be "eas(il)y knocked off." The lock plate should be held firmly in place either on the grip area or stud by by tension of the collective bottoming. It should require definite downward pressure on the collective to engage/disengage the lock plate. Cyclic friction is another question altogether, difficult ergonomically, unlike the collective lock.
Servos will 'motor', moving controls spontaneously, which is why people think turning the hydraulics off is a good idea. In some aircraft the hydraulics off trim point is not the same you set your controls before you exit, turning off the boost allows them to return to the designed neutral setting- the collective will rise to an approximate mid-point on the Astar which, at flight idle, is a significant amount of lift. I wouldn't trust force trim to maintain control positions either: if I couldn't friction/clamp/lock all the controls, including throttle, I wouldn't consider leaving the seat.
Externals have to be considered as well. Is the aircraft securely placed? Wind and weather not a problem? And the groundlings- is it better to manage the area personally or is it better to shut down? Not being able to restart after the ground operations can be a safety issue if you're not at a regularly secured landing facility.

It always puzzles me that the Europeans I know are so very well trained but hobbled by excessive regulation at home. NO- our alleged 'cowboy' attitude isn't the reason various Yank pilots buy the farm- if the very real possibility that being stupid doesn't stop a pilot, a rule won't. If that is the problem here, it's a trainig\ng issue from Day One of the training process- my opinion.

SASless

3rd Oct 2016, 13:20

Are we seeing a Generation of Pilots that only "think" they know what they are about? I note more than a few will quote the "Queen's Regulations" (or whatever Authority is in vogue at the time) but seem not to have a full understanding of not only "what" the Rule has to say....but do not fully understand "why" the Rule exists and that it is very near impossible to write a Rule that covers every possible situation.

The Black and White situations are easy to apply the various Rules to...but it is the Gray colored situations that demand the ability to know when the Rule should be considered sound advice but not be considered as having been etched in Stone.

They are all written on Paper at some place....and are subject to Amendment over time.

Bureaucracy only adds to the Rule Book....and never reduces the amount of burden it adds to the situation.

Nubian

3rd Oct 2016, 18:43

Chop,

Yes, for CAT ops.
What regs count for private flying, I've no idea about. But from your logic, interpretation and argumentation as seen here and in other threads, I'm sure you have a solution to get around most regulations anyway...

Thomas coupling

3rd Oct 2016, 22:15

It boils down to risk.
Does the veteran bushpilot know better than the flight ops inspectorate department?
Bit of both really, the bush pilot eats sleeps and flies his job day in day out and gets a "feel" for his work and associated risks. Leaving a cab running is 2nd nature.
The inspectorate making the rules see it from outside of this bubble and look at the risk inherent in that bush pilots job and regulates accordingly. Neither are right or wrong in each and every case.
BUT.
The wheel stops spinning when something goes very badly wrong and if it so happens to kill or maim an innocent bystander, then thats where the rules come in I guess - to protect the public.
Go ahead and kill yourself - no-one really cares, especially if you have no family but often it's the case where the "operator" has a conflict of interest and puts to one side this risk to achieve the operational outcome - often no consideration for others, just self. In that case - no one really cares and we say goodbye to another darwin member.
IF one was to stop for a second and count the emotional, financial and operational cost of an accident happening, leaving a cab running would never be an option but time is money, people cost money and so to hell with certain rules - too much bother, I guess.
As they say, if you think applying the rules costs money - try having an accident:uhoh:

SASless

3rd Oct 2016, 22:53

IF one was to stop for a second and count the emotional, financial and operational cost of an accident happening, leaving a cab running would never be an option but time is money, people cost money and so to hell with certain rules - too much bother, I guess.

Do you think the CAA, EASA, FAA, and the rest of the Alphabet Gang have divine wisdom in their writing of the "Rules"?

You reckon every "Rule" is universal truth?

Even the Authorities grant dispensation to Pilots to violate those very "Rules" at times.

If an Operation such as we are discussing has been, is being done, and will continue to be done literally millions of times with absolutely no problems....just like many other common practices in Aviation....just why should it be so unsafe in your view?

Do you analyze the few accidents that occur during these events to determine what actually caused the accident and then assign the blame based upon that?

Question for you....the Super Puma (or whatever it was) that flew into the Water in the Shetlands.....did you call for the banning of cloud break procedures or non-precision approaches ?

This leaving the cockpit thing is exactly the same in concept.

If IMC near terra firma....I pay attention to my flight path and height above the surface....if I leave the cockpit and leave the Helicopter running...I make sure the controls are secure and the aircraft is stable and it is the best thing to do.

Aviation is nothing but a Risk Management Exercise....where all Risks cannot be removed without putting an end to the aviating part of the exercise.

There is nothing Darwinian about that.

vaqueroaero

3rd Oct 2016, 23:09

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/Results.aspx?queryId=c570b8f9-b244-48f3-b95c-a9a22f56c285

Not much else to say really.

SASless

3rd Oct 2016, 23:25

post-accident examination of the helicopter revealed that the cyclic friction lock was not tightened, which contradicted with
the flight manual's shutdown checklist.

1) At an airport....not in the Bush or some remote site where shutting down would in itself pose a hazard.

2) Landed at the wrong fuel pump and did not reposition THEN Shutdown.

3) Failed to secure the Cyclic Stick Friction.

4) Failed to safely approach the helicopter.

How does this prove the Procedure cannot be done safely?

It certainly proves this particular event was not done safely.

If you want....we can expand this debate to include yet another discussion about how RFM's come to be written by manufacturers (with strong input from their Lawyers as well as their Test Pilots and Engineers).

LRP

3rd Oct 2016, 23:30

How would a pilot at the controls prevent someone from walking into the main rotor?

I'll admit if the pilot operating the aircraft remains at the controls he is at least one individual who can't walk into the M/R. If he had walked in front of a ramp vehicle and got struck and killed would the NTSB still say the probable cause was because he was out walking around while his helicopter was at idle?

Seems a bit of a stretch.

vaqueroaero

4th Oct 2016, 03:33

I'm in the camp that it can be done safely. Heck I did it 4 or 5 times today in the process of spraying 500 acres of wheat.

The point is that there are people out there that are under the assumption that by turning off the hydraulic switch in certain aircraft it locks the controls which it doesn't. The frictions should be used if it has to be done.

whoknows idont

4th Oct 2016, 07:27

I'm in the camp that it can be done safely. Heck I did it 4 or 5 times today in the process of spraying 500 acres of wheat.

Why no ground crew? Would have been faster, too. :confused:

Devil 49

4th Oct 2016, 13:37

Implying that it's more convenient/easier/quicker to leave the aircraft running versus shut down/restart puzzle me. My experience is exactly the opposite, at least single engine. Sounds a bit puritanical to me.

Perhaps a couple decades in the Rubber Ducky, also known as the AS350, have hazed my recollection. Lock the collective, tighten the cyclic friction, do the interminable paper work, and enjoy the heated/cooled air staying dry. It's short-coupled stiff legged beast, so the skids might shift, but I'm sitting at the controls.

Versus double checking how the aircraft sits, locking the collective, leveling the disk, applying sufficient twist on the cyclic friction that I'm positive it isn't moving (the French must be very supple with clamp-like grips), sliding the seat back, undoing my harness, unfolding from the seat to exit, watching the tail rotor like a hawk as I walk about- pilots have walked into their own TR- and doing my ground recon (Yes, LRP, I remember). Then reverse the process. The cyclic friction knob is always more difficult when decreasing friction.

The ground recon in and of itself justifies the work, especially at night. I don't lay rocks and chips, but I do carry an intense 'torch' (flashlight) to scan the immediate overhead for wires, the ground itself for less obvious hazards (fire ant mounds are also a real problem for my crew), and then the perimeter skyline for occult wires. Company policy is that I not use a hazardous LZ, but the high/low recon are conducted in high workload situations, ad the ground crew's preparatory evaluation is done by, well- amateurs.

Helicopters go where it's less efficient for ground transport. There are very real risks in shutting down/restarting: batteries, starter generators, relays, etc. I might opt to leave the pig running instead of discovering a start maintenance fault 3 hours by ground from pavement, or even more embarrassing- on a major traffic artery. If everything works, I can start before the nurse closes the medic door, walks around and buckles in. It's much easier to do that.

Good Vibs

4th Oct 2016, 13:48

The nice old OH-23D for me, Class 67-3.
Don't forget we were either solo or with our stick buddy.
No innocent passengers nearby to pay for our mistakes.

Many years ago a crew picked up a brand new 206(L?) at the Bell factory.
On the way back to their company (west coast?) they flew past Pikes Peak and stopped at the peak to take a few photos.
Both wanted to be in the photos and not wanting to shut down due to the altitude they frictioned everything and got out.
The camera was set up to take several photos, which it did.
The photos showed how the two crew watched the new 206 slide off the mountain into the valley below!
Must have been interesting talking to the owners, etc.
I wonder what story they had to tell

Thomas coupling

4th Oct 2016, 14:15

SAS: calm down dear.

Rules were invented to control the average punter. Because the average human really does need looking after after centuries of softening up with restrictions on anything and everything.
After all we are human therefore we err.
Pilots (and I know you're going to find this hard to swallow) are not anything special. They 'cock up' like all other walks of life, the problem is, when they do, it's usually when they have a lethal weapon in their possession.

I am sure there are many pilots out there who do this day in and day out - successfully. BUT it is still inherently dangerous and when one considers that the average pilot is just another human, so called experts with the wisdom and authority afforded them by our lords and masters serve to ALARP the risk of inflicting serious harm or death by handing a lethal weapon over to 'just another human'.

Like it or leave it SASSY, it's designed to protect most humans, most of the time.

But helo pilots are real men and so the rules don't apply in this case.......:eek:

SASless

4th Oct 2016, 15:33

I suppose like many endeavors....as long as the system ensures mediocrity and relieving the participants from having to actually think about what they are doing...we will continue to see accidents caused by stupid people because the system ensures there are more of them in the affected population.

The presence of more Rules does not necessarily translate to fewer accidents.

You might consider what this study has to say when it compares Helicopter EMS Accident Rates for the UK, Germany, Australia, and the USA.

What is significant is the Study did not consider the impact of Night and IFR/IMC Operations on the Accident Rates.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662871

rugmuncher

4th Oct 2016, 15:52

Good Vibs

4th Oct 2016, 19:54

Its been a long time but I don't think so.
I remember photos being passed around showing the two very surprised crew members at first not aware what was happening behind them. Once the noise started they turned around and watched!
Photos being automatically taken all the time.

FH1100 Pilot

5th Oct 2016, 14:36

It's funny how this debate surfaces periodically. And how there are two distinct viewpoints on it. And how these threads drone on and on and on as we rehash the same old issues...

Is getting out while running safe? Of course it is. It's certainly not any more dangerous than anything else we do with helicopters. Helicopters don't spontaneously blow up or catch fire. It's safe as long as the proper procedures are followed. And aren't we pilots procedure-driven types of guys? Can't we be trusted to carry out basic aviation-type procedures? Well of course we can. Same with getting out while running.

We always hear about the very few times it went wrong: A 407 pilot getting whacked in the noggin by his own helicopter; a bird falling off Pike's Peak. What we *don't* hear about are all the times pilots got out successfully and nothing happened. Anecdotally, it appears that this practice is far more widespread than some imagine.

In my former life, flying a 206 around for a rich guy, all we did was go into off-airport sites. So to ensure everyone's safety, I'd get out and help them with the doors, belts, their bags... It's amazing that you can show people how to work the very simple 206 baggage compartment latches but they turn into blithering idiots when confronted by the incomprehensible devices at the end of the flight.

And don't give me this rot about, "Just shut down!" Hey, you just shut up! My RR-250 requires a 2-minute cooldown. My very important, impatient boss and his very important, impatient pax are *not* going to sit there like idiots with their thumbs up their bums for two minutes while I cool down and stop the rotor. They have very important things to do, man! So let's just be real.

Now, properly frictioned, the 206 controls don't move; the unboosted pedals don't move. At ground idle, if I yank up on the collective, the rotor rpm goes, "BLEEEEAAAAHHHHH" and slows down even further. This is also the case in every other helicopter I've flown. They don't take off at idle. But I haven't flown the AS-350. What's up with that ship?

People have written here that a 350 will fly away at ground idle if the collective "pops up" which I guess it's prone to do?? Why is this? Does the collective move on its own? If you're doing a power-on, flat-pitch approach and take your hand off the collective to scratch your nose/ass, will the collective come up? Once landed, are pilots not setting the proper ground idle rpm? Does the collective not have a friction lock in addition to the down-lock? That would seem odd. What kind of piece of junk helicopter is the 350, anyway? Controls can't be frictioned...controls move on their own?!

So how did that guy in the Grand Canyon's Astar lift off and roll over on him while he was doing that "fluid level check - human fluid depletion procedure?"

Now, after all of the smart-assedness above I will say one thing: Once I saw an ag-pilot standing outside of a Hiller 12E. He was doing...something...I couldn't tell what (not peeing - he was tinkering with the spray gear). What I *could* tell, was that the 12E was up at operating rpm - 2700 or 3200 -way up there. Definitely not idle. I got in my car and drove away as fast as I could. Nothing happened in that case (I saw the ship flying later), but it occurs to me that we have some pretty stupid helicopter pilots out there.

212man

5th Oct 2016, 15:19

Is this the one, is so they told quite a tale.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001206X00631&key=1
Well it's clearly not:
THE PILOT MADE A LOW PASS OVER PIKES PEAK (14,110 FEET MSL) TO ALLOW HIS PASSENGER TO TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS AND FOR HIM TO CHECK THE WIND CONDITIONS. HE FIRST MADE A LEFT 360 DEGREE CIRCULAR PASS, THEN SET UP A LOW APPROACH INTO THE WIND AND BEGAN A SLOW DESCENT. THE PILOT SAID THAT AT AN ALTITUDE OF ABOUT 40 TO 60 FEET ABOVE THE TERRAIN, HE 'LOST CONTROL IN THE YAW AXIS ONLY,' AND THE HELICOPTER MADE TWO OR THREE ROTATIONS BEFORE STRIKING THE GROUND AND ROLLING OVER.

SASless

5th Oct 2016, 15:49

Sounds like the Achilles Heel of a Jet Ranger....called LTE but actually too little Tail Rotor Thrust to counteract Torque when the DA gets high.

500guy

5th Oct 2016, 16:54

Spot on FH1100,
This happens thousands of times every day in the utility industry us. In the utility world. These ships are operated for 8+/- hours a day and typically only have two starts a day (sometimes they shut down for lunch). They typically fuel 5-10 times each day and get out for a bio break on about half of those fuel stops. multiply that 3-4 times each day by about 1000 aircraft and you will see it happens all of the time.

Many pointed out some good tips.
Typically, in the utility industry you are in a field with no other persons around. Typically the pilot never gets more than 10m away form the aircraft.

Ground Idle, Frictions on.

Wheeled aircraft?! not used in the utility industry.

I would never do it in high winds, or on a uneven or slippery surface.

Sure there is risk to it, but certainly not anymore than pulling pitch on any given day.

whoknows idont

5th Oct 2016, 21:20

So how did that guy in the Grand Canyon's Astar lift off and roll over on him while he was doing that "fluid level check - human fluid depletion procedure?"

I think the report (http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140518X03315&ntsbno=WPR14FA195&akey=1) hasn't been posted here yet.

The pilot's shoulder harness straps were visible over his shoulders. The pilot glanced downward, a reflection consistent with the pilot removing his shoulder harness was visible in the airspeed gauge.

At 15:57:12.26, the red colored "TWT GRIP" light (Twist Grip Light) illuminated on the annunciator panel. Engine audio was consistent with the reduction of N1 toward ground idle.

The pilot reached for the 30 Alpha Panel with his right hand, and switched the HORN switch "Off". The pilot moved his head out of the line of sight of the camera, and the amber colored "HORN" light was illuminated on the annunciator panel. Turbine Output Temperature (TOT) on the VEMD showed a drop along with the Rotor Speed (Nr) gauge consistent with a selection of ground idle.

At 15:57:13, the Engine Data Recorder for collective position showed a slight increase indicating the collective handle had become unlocked.

The red colored trim yarn was observed outside the windscreen center post at the 3 o'clock position and buffeting indicating a crosswind from the left. This was observed for the duration of the recording.

At 15:57:18.01, the red colored "TWT GRIP" light extinguished on the annunciator panel. Engine audio was consistent with an increase and acceleration of N1 toward flight idle. The TOT indication on the VEMD gauge began to trend up along with the free turbine speed N2/Nr gauge. Engine oil pressure began to climb slightly.

The pilot reached for the 30 Alpha Panel with his right hand, and switched the HORN switch "On". The annunciator panel came into view. No lights were illuminated on the panel.

The pilot reached for and removed his headset. The pilot placed foam earplugs in his ears. The pilot moved his head, and looked down and to the left while he moved his body slightly to the right. A sound similar to a door latch operating and an increase in ambient rotorcraft noise was heard.

At 15:57:33.76, the pilot began to exit the camera's field of view to the left of the rotorcraft.

Sounds like he really had to pee urgently. :ouch::(

I wonder why this practice had become common among some of the Papillon pilots. If the procedures explicitly prohibit this, why not have a proper shut-down at base when the bladder tank is at max? A healthy 26 yo shouldn't have to do this more than once or twice during a regular work day. And it could easily be justified towards management if it ever raised questions.

krypton_john

6th Oct 2016, 06:55

"I've always wondered if he got his Darwin Award... that year 10% of all NZ's civvy registered helicopters came to grief."

That would be about 80 helicopters... nearly seven a month... sounds a bit high, ShyTorque?

27/09

6th Oct 2016, 08:53

Krypton John, I cannot find the post you are referring to, but I remember hearing the average lifespan of a helicopter in New Zealand during the time deer recovery was in full flight, was 3 years.

Naturally not all machines were written off in a three year period, some had a very short life span. However the turnover was high. 33% per year, which easily eclipses 10%.

The earning potential was so high the cost of replacement was not a problem. Remember we're talking turbine machines here in the main, usually H369's

There is probably many more helicopter in NZ today.

SuperF

6th Oct 2016, 09:15

the life span of deer recovery machines may have been 33%, however not all machines were deer recovery, so loss rate would have been lower.

The 10% was talked about in the mid 90's. serious deer recovery was a distant memory by then, with most full time deer operators moving up from D's and E's all the way to 300's and 22's, such was the economics of it by then.

Also in the 90's we had between 3-500 helicopters, not the 850 odd that we now have, so 10% would have been 30-50, i guess that is possible.

FH1100 Pilot

7th Oct 2016, 00:51

Regarding the Astar accident in the Grand Canyon...

First we have to define some terms. The NTSB report uses the terms "flight idle" and "ground idle." This can be confusing to some, especially pilots with primarily piston experience. But also because (in the 206 community at least) the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

However in this context, "flight idle" refers to throttle fully open and collective all the way down. Ground idle means throttle reduced to an "idle" position, with the N2 below the governed range. A helicopter at "ground idle" cannot fly. A helicopter at "flight idle" is ready to fly away if the collective rises. Which it tragically did in this case.

The NTSB report is chilling. The kid (he was 26 years old - I've got socks older than that) was apparently trying to get back in the ship as it was falling over. Very sad. But what the report also reveals to us is very disturbing. It appears that Papillon's policy was to always leave their throttles fully open...always.

Other Papillon pilots admitted to doing the (ahem) "fluid level check" which we all understand is code for "I gotta get out and take a leak." But the older, wiser pilots said they always performed said procedure at GROUND idle, which just makes sense.

The young pilot in question, perhaps not as experienced in the ways of the world as we would wish, went strictly by the Papillon Ops Manual and unbelievably did his "fluid level checks" at full throttle. Why ANYBODY would get out of a helicopter at full throttle is just completely baffling. Why would you *do* that? Oh, right, because the Ops Manual says to. (I can't believe they do all of their loading and unloading at 100%, but I guess they do.)

Again, I'm not familiar with the AS-350. And I do not know why the Astar's control system is apparently designed so that the collective can creep up - or in any direction, actually. Forget about locking it completely down - if there is not a device that adds enough "general" friction to keep it from moving unintentionally (like, forgive me, the 206) if you take your hand off it, then IN MY OPINION the design is defective. And that design defect resulted in the death of that unfortunate Papillon pilot.

Getting out of a running helicopter that's at its full operating rpm is just dumb. I can't believe young pilots would not be aware of the hazards of doing such a thing. Sadly, the poor Papillon pilot paid for that mistake with his life.

RVDT

7th Oct 2016, 02:50

Again, I'm not familiar with the AS-350. And I do not know why the Astar's control system is apparently designed so that the collective can creep up - or in any direction, actually. Forget about locking it completely down - if there is not a device that adds enough "general" friction to keep it from moving unintentionally (like, forgive me, the 206) if you take your hand off it, then IN MY OPINION the design is defective.

Friction AND collective lock on all of them AFAIK.

Too bad that the policy revolved around the flawed understanding of "low flow" issues with the engine as pointed out in the report.

krypton_john

7th Oct 2016, 03:42

27/09 - don't disagree with you, but the bad old days of deer recovery are a long time ago. But I believe ShyTorque mentioned 10 years ago - no deer recovery happening then.

SuperF - I can't find ShyTorque's post but I think he said 10 years or a decade ago - so mid 2000's... probably not such a big difference in fleet size to now?

SuperF

8th Oct 2016, 02:54

KJ, 10 years ago about 600 helicopters, i thought that the original post said mid 90's, but i can't find it either. mid 90's about 3-500.

Old Farang

8th Oct 2016, 03:15

Devil 49

8th Oct 2016, 20:42

AS350 engines, at least in the B & BA, went through a period where coking bearings was a concern with some engine oils. I was instructed to bring NR up to flight every 5 minutes of ground idle and run for half a minute or so. I've not heard of this issue in the last decade or so.

The collective will rise because the Starflex and controls are set/preloaded for a theoretical 50 knot cruise. Collective settings above or below this will be trying to return to this middle collective situation, the hydraulics maintain your commanded setting. The collective lock provides a positive lock to keep vibration and feed back from allowing this movement. Training is that once you have the collective full down, slide your hand up and engage the collective lock, unless you intend to fly away.

FH1100 Pilot

9th Oct 2016, 15:39

Thank you, you handsome Devil 49. That makes perfect sense. I appreciate you explaining it.

But still...knowing this... one wonders why the Grand Canyon pilot did not avail himself of the ability to tighten up the collective friction IN ADDITION to engaging the down-lock, which obviously had come undone. I don't know... It's just... I mean, if you're going to get out of your running helicopter, especially at 100% NR, wouldn't you want to make damn sure the controls couldn't move? Just how badly did this kid have to pee?

SASless

9th Oct 2016, 19:58

I have done some genuinely silly things in my life...and some incredibly stupid things...and even things that totally defy comprehension....but leaving a Helicopter running at Full Chat unattended...is not among any of them.

Vertical Freedom

10th Oct 2016, 03:17

I'd never leave a Helicopter whilst it's running at 100% flight idle....that IS dumber than Dog Shiiiit

Vertical Freedom

10th Oct 2016, 06:10

Oooow those of little knowledge........................are bloody dangerous http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

Exiting whilst turning & burning is an approved SOP in the Ops Man in many Countries, including the extended Himalayas. It reduces time on the ground http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/icon25.gif Increases the urgency to GO for those on-ground :8 Did You notice the weather coming in on the Video? Doooh :8 by the way that is not Mera but Khote village H :=

Have You CA2 ever tried starting a machine above 20,000' &/or below zero with any serious altitude? http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/worry.gif CA2 I sure as shiiit wouldn't wanna be learning from You as my instructor as there ain't much in your 'bag of wisdom' http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif next time You land on a remote pinnacle with weather rolling in & a MedEvac Rescue to do; by all means shut down, light up a fag, order a cuppa tea & see the beauty of the clouds roll in as Your Patient dies gagging, drowning in their own blood from Altitude-Sickness :eek:

CA2 please try & think outside the box Mate & find out the right reasons things are being done the way they are........after over 29 years of flying, 10 years in the Mountains; exiting whilst Rotors-Running well over 6,000 times has served me a great benefit in getting the job done safely & expeditiously http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif (note: without incident, not once)

If the correct procedure is applied, this operation is SAFE :8
1. after landing still at flight idle, prove the round is stable, giving the Cyclic & Pedals a good stir & dance :ok:
2. throttle to ground idle, collective locked, frictions on, hydraulics off (350 series)
3. get out, close Your door, do the job fast & fly away :eek:

Happy Landings & never loose ETL unless Your slinging, aerial working, or on short final to land :ok: