Holding Helicopters

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

It is alleged that an R22 helicopter was asked to hold by hovering on base leg at approx 700ft agl and the low time student all but lost control.
Is it felt that the ADI ATCO should have had had the knowledge to know that this was potentially hazardous.?

:)

[Chilli Monster]

This is going to happen more and more with the lack of background knowledge new ATCO's have.

It's a helicopter - they think they can hover (That's what helicopters do after all). They're not an R22 pilot, so they're not going to know that you still need forward speed to remain stable. It's not required knowledge (in many people's eyes)

Hopefully the whole unit will learn from this, not just the ATCO concerned - thankfully they're not learning via an AAIB enquiry.

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

Fair enough Chilli and I fully agree with the comment on low time ATCO's.

At an airfield where holding is common for vortex is it not encumbant on the helicopter instructor to ensure that the student has the where with all to say no I cant do that,
A bit chicken and eggish I suppose.
:confused:

[ShyTorque]

Chilli, hope this doesn't mean you won't let me hover when you ask me to hold on base leg? ;)

[AlanM]

ST - depends on your definition of "hold"

When we say hold (and I do it to rotary traffic 20 times a day!) we kind of expect you to fly in smallish slow circles - for the obvious safety reason..... But also means that when we say cross behind the lander etc, you will already have some airspeed. (I mean, I let you practice that BUR for 10 minutes the other day!!!!!:ouch: )

CM is right though - aircraft awareness is decreasing in ATCOs.

I guess you can part blame the instructor in a way - for not telling his student how to hold... and to say if you can't.

[Reflex]

Talking to some of the ATC guys at STN the other day.
Their reasoning behind rotary phobia was that the college uses helicopters as 'problems' if they want to upset a student's flow. After a bit this becomes understandably deep-rooted and the knee jerk reaction is rather negative.
We took most of an ATC watch for a trip the other week to keep the education going - you should have seen the expressions when I showed them the London Heliroutes map.

[Grumpy Old ATCO]

AlanM

You said


- for the obvious safety reason..

This is the issue why should it be obvious... see the info on what is happening at the ATC college. The current and future shortage of grumpy old, experienced ATCOs IMHO will not stand up to a formal Safety Assessment as every body cannot be expected to know everything( except me of course) and eventually the gap will lead to a serious incident.

;)

[Gonzo]

Is there not also an equal (perhaps greater) burden of responsibility on the pilot to say 'no'?

[Chilli Monster]

There is - but the student / newly qualified PPL mindset normally hasn't developed that far. That's something else you have to be aware of when dealing pilots of differing qualifications / experience.

(For light GA we have the pilots licence types on the strip, obtained when they book out - can be helpful)

[AlanM]

Grumpy - Sorry I meant "obvious" to ShyTorque...

I think things are changing at the college of knowledge.

Not sure I like the idea of "Pilots type of licence" on the strip. That could lull you into a false sense of security.... I have seen some KingAirs with CPLs flying do the most bizarre things.

If someone is on a First solo/First XC then nice to know.

It is incumbent on the older experienced breed to pass on that knowledge and experience.

[lobby]

An ATCO cannot be expected to know the performance limitations / handling characteristics of every type of aircraft. However, the pilot of an aircraft should have a great understanding of their aircrafts limitation / handling characteristics. If given an instruction that would place the aircraft outside the aircrafts or the pilots limitations then it is up to the pilot to say that they cannot comply with the instruction, no matter how experienced they are they should know when to say no.

The lack of new ATCOs aircraft knowledge is a problem, but they will learn given time. Give them a chance, we all have to learn.

[AlanM]

Lobby - it isn't a dig at the ATCO - a dig really at the lack of emphasis on aircraft performance and basic knowledge that has arisen. Yes we all have to learn (and never stop) but the point is that trainees used to be afforded a wider grounding of this and other issues BEFORE plugging in.

[Standard Noise]

Nowt wrong with holding helicopters.....................on the ground.:E

[peatair]

I agree with the probable (serious) risks inherent in asking helicopters to "hover." Airfields at which helicopters need to hold for traffic reasons ought to establish better procedures for handling them. These might, for instance, involve establishing relatively small "racetrack" holding positions etc. Why don't these airfields work with the pilots to produce better procedures?

[aluminium persuader]

Lobby - I think an ATCO should have a good idea of the general handling & perf characteristics. Our mantra is "safe, orderly & expeditious" and while you can have the first, you can't get the second or third without the knowledge. You don't need to know the V(at) of a half-laden 744 but you should know that helo's are safer in a small orbit with some forward speed than in a hover.

ap

[ShyTorque]

There does seem to be a divide amongst ATCOs; those who understand helicopters, and are aware of their limitations and strengths - and those who don't understand.

For example, modern twin helis can fly at much higher speed than some realise. I have been asked to "make best speed" during an ILS, due to one behind, only to be asked to slow down again shortly after because I was catching up the B767 ahead! If I get some advance warning about fitting in with traffic on rejoin I can always slow right down to 30kts (but 55kts IMC, we don't like too slow there as we need visual reference to hover and the autopilot/coupling has minimum speed limits) or we can accelerate to 160kts. Much nicer for the pax; one thing that makes pax sick is those slow, tight orbits!

I often don't need to go to the runway to depart VFR, only a clear area (over a reasonable surface in case of a low-speed abort and re-landing due to a single engine failure before TDP - less than 30 kts IAS on my present type).
I am quite happy to land on a runway with one ahead, or even to side-step onto a taxyway, or grassed area on finals.

What I really can't do is to follow complicated and detailed, unfamiliar taxy ATC instructions if I'm in the hover, at least not if it involves reading a plate! My aircraft starts flying as soon as the rotors turn and keeps on flying until they've stopped - I need both hands on the controls to keep it all in shape. "Take the first right & second left on the taxiway, hold at S" etc. is far easier for us, thanks. I can't safely let go of the controls for more than a second or so - even to ground taxy. I can just about change a tx ponder code in the hover, but many pilots can't, depending on heli type. To give me a complicated clearance or change after I've lifted might cause me a problem as I have to fly the a/c with both hands, read it back, set the codes and remember the rest of it. I might already be coping with a crosswind or downwind, even whilst taxying.

Similarly, I have problems with a downwind touchdown if expediting to vacate a runway - to do that I need to raise the nose hard and I can easily touch the tail on the ground / hit the tail rotor as it sits close to the ground already.
Especially when departing into IMC / IFR, my initial workload will be as high, if not higher, than on many fixed wing aircraft (and I'm single pilot IFR). Same on short finals, especially if on an instrument approach. I can't understand why some ATCOs see fit to talk to us on the radio at these critical times when they wouldn't do it to a fixed wing pilot. We need a "sterile cockpit" as much as they do, we might be flying to Performance profile numbers at this stage, with regard to speed and rate of descent.
We heli pilots with an IR keep current but we aren't routinely flying the ILS so we might not be as slick at it as the jet boys are. If I do ask for an ILS it's usually because I really need it, so be gentle - please! :ooh:
However, when joining VFR I can often fly very close behind a preceding aircraft at what seem like suicidal wake/vortex spacing on finals because I don't need to fly through the same air as he does (is one rotor span from his tailfin OK?), I'm above his wake on a normal approach and can offset on his upwind side, to get further, lateral spacing. You possibly noticed that when I'm cleared to land on a runway having been "number 2", I'm often well laterally offset and/or very steep, until I'm past him, or past his touchdown point - that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it ;).

[Defruiter]

I had absolutely no idea about this, so thank you for educating me in this thread!

I can never recall being taught this, we were always given the impression that helicopters can hover without moving.

Perhaps this should be a requirement to learn before something like this happens again? (I wouldn't be suprised if it does become a requirement in light of this incident)

[kookabat]

I work at a helicopter charter company based at a major international airport - we have had a couple of our piltos visit the tower to say g'day and ask a few questions - trying to organise a few ATCers to get on a few of our flights so they can see what a heli can and can't do!
A little education both ways can't hurt.

[vector4fun]

I can't hover three feet off the ground in a OH-6, I've tried! :}

[niknak]

ALthough I have a good understanding of what to expect from low hour students, I would never expect an instructer to let a student go solo without being able to cope with holding in any particular location or coping with an unusual situation.
The ATCO is clearly not at fault here, it's partially the student but largely the failure of instructor to ensure that the pilot can cope.

To put it in very very simple terms, if the student hasn't been taught to shout for help at the earliest opportunity, the training establishment should be nailed to the wall and beaten extremely severely.

[2 sheds]

"Their reasoning behind rotary phobia was that the college uses helicopters as 'problems' if they want to upset a student's flow. After a bit this becomes understandably deep-rooted and the knee jerk reaction is rather negative."

I think that this is a little unfair - however, what was done just a few years ago, certainly at CATC, was to introduce helicopters into the scenarios far too early (IMHO), and although to you and me it would be no problem - in fact, it could be perfectly straightforward if you appreciate the advantages of the helicopter's performance compared with the rest (aeroplanes) - to the trainees, it was often too much, too soon, therefore could be perceived as deliberately introduced problems (e.g. read the data, know the aircraft types and appreciate which is a helicopter for a start!) .

[throw a dyce]

At Aberdeen we have to use orbit instead of hold for circuit low time pilots.I think it was introduced as part of stall/spin awareness,but it looks like light helis could well use this procedure.
I had to laugh about the college using helis as problems.Perhaps some of the instructors could come up to ISZ to see how it's done in the real world.50% of our traffic is problems.:cool:

[AlanM]

Go and do EGLL SVFR and it is ALL helicopter problems that have to be separated!! :)

[Reflex]

And an exceptional job Heathrow special/Thames manage to perform.
Be great to dream up some routing for when LCY is on easterlies though!!

[MBJ]

Not just low-time ATCOs who may not understand that "hold" does not mean "hover" in the air. Some years ago a colleague of mine with a CAA Flight Ops Inspector on board was given absolute rocks by the FOI for not hovering when asked to hold on a heli-route at 800ft. It was at NIGHT too!

[Bern Oulli]

Have to agree with 2 Sheds. However, the underlying theme of "low-time ATCOs" having little appreciation of aircraft types/performance cannot possibly have anything to do with a reduction of the training time, the reduction of flying time, the reduction or elimination of "in the field experience", or the removal of the requirement to do the Aerodrome course for Approach and Area students..........Can it?

[AlanM]

Cynical as ever!:ok:

Love it :D

[Overt Auk]

Interesting thread this. I’ve been invited over from the Rotorheads forum for a look.

It is quite understandable that non-pilots are unaware of the limitations of helicopters, even if it is a little alarming that this includes ATCOs. As a plank driver who saw the rotary light, I was amazed to discover that helicopter pilots who zoomed along at low level before pulling up into a climb weren’t doing it for fun but actually needed to. What every helicopter pilot knows is that, while helicopters can hover, they really don’t like it at all. The type that I fly typically requires about 65% of available power to cruise at 120 kts, 80% to sit in a low hover and cannot hover out of ground effect at all unless about a ton below max all-up weight. Asking it to do so would rapidly lead to a situation analogous to a fixed wing being in a deep stall, virtually out of control and needing several thousand feet to recover.

As mentioned above, we can be very flexible in forward speed. Depending on type, minimum speed for comfortable control (and flight manual minimum for IMC flight) will range from 40 kts for a light single up to 70 kts for some heavies. Maximum speed may be in excess of 160 kts for some of the latter.

If you have the flexibility and time (and I appreciate that you may have neither), offering an early speed reduction would usually be preferred over a late hold.

OA

[JimBall]

Asking an R22 to hover with one onboard shouldn't be a problem. However, if this event happened in the last few weeks, there's not been much wind around - so a lowtimer would be a little more tense.

To most rotary pilots a hold is a hold. If we're in a tight spot we have to hover - if we have space we can keep airspeed. If we have headwind, we already have some forward airspeed.

In reality, a hold on the perimeters of LHR is a hover - but there has to an element of predicting when to move. As AlanM says, they need you at LHR to be ready to cross - and that means airspeed in advance. So (believe it or not) we look up finals for the approaching traffic and take a guess which gap we'll be given - and then start a slow move. If the clearance doesn't come at the obvious time, we go back to a hover or turn.

Trouble is - that's when sod's law kicks in and you get a clearance.

'course it could be they're playing a game with us......:rolleyes:

[Gonzo]

I thought the procedure in the AIP for crossing LHR said orbit, not hover.

Yep, just looked it up..

AIP EGLL AD 2.22 refers:

Note 1: It is essential that helicopters execute the holding manoeuvre in an orbit and not in the hover.

[fluffy5]

If you would kindly look at the response I have placed on rotor heads.
The helicopter in question, can rapidly turn nasty. A student would not have the time to shout for help. This lack of understanding nearly developed into a loss of life.

[AlanM]

This lack of understanding nearly developed into a loss of life.

Lack of understanding by the pilot more than anything - for not knowing the limitations of the airframe and it's abilities?

OR

Lack of teaching by the instructor?

[Gonzo]

For an ATCO to gain a Unit Endorsement on his/her licence requires intimate knowledge of ATC procedures and techniques. It is not necessary (nor feasible) to have an intimate knowledge of a/c performance and characteristics of many diverse a/c types, even though it is obviously desirable for ATCOs to continue to learn and broaden their knowledge in this regard by fam flights, liaison trips etc.

That's why pilots train......to gain an intimate knowledge of the performance and characteristics of their own aircraft.

Yes, an unfortunate situation, of course, but I hope someone will see what lessons there are in regards of the training this pilot received.

[Chilli Monster]

I love the fact that certain persons here are so quick to blame the instruction, and are totally overlooking the human factors element.

1) Student pilots are, on the whole, operating at the limits of mental capacity (especially helicopter students)

2) Student pilots, at ATC controlled airfields, are told to do what ATC tells them.

Maybe certain ATCO's who have been so quick to criticise should realise that the flying world is not solely populated by professional pilots who fly into the one and only place that said ATCO's have probably ever worked.

There's a bigger world out there guys - think out of the box for a change.

[throw a dyce]

Don't heli pilots call it dead man curve.Hovering has to be done at low level in case of engine failure.

[Gonzo]

Chili, I wasn't criticising anyone. I was just making the point that the lessons on the ATC side (though I hesitate to call it that) in this case are seemingly clear; more familiarisation on the types of a/c and types of flying that those aircraft conduct.

The lessons of the training of helicopter pilots should also be examined. Lets not assign blame, we can all learn from incidents (or near incidents) like this.

I have also worked at an airfield where extensive flying training took place, albeit not for a prolonged period.

Student pilots, at ATC controlled airfields, are told to do what ATC tells them.

That's certainly not what I was told to do when I was learning at a controlled airfield. Before I went solo (fixed wing), and during the subsequent solo consolidation hours I was under no illusion that if anything was out of the ordinary at all or I didn't feel 100% happy, to let ATC know, or ask for plain language clarification. Indeed, the day I went solo, Concorde was operating pleasure flights to the Bay from the same aerodrome. I wouldn't have thought twice about saying 'no' to ATC if they'd asked me to do something I was unsure about, even if it meant delaying Concorde.

This is perhaps one of the lessons that I was referring to. If student pilots are indeed being taught to blindly follow ATC instructions without first ensuring they understand the implications to their own aircraft, then I would suggest that needs investigating.

If student [helicopter] pilots are operating to the limits of mental capacity to the extent that they get themselves into dangerous situations, then perhaps the training syllabus should be looked at? Minimum hours? synthetic training aids?

[BHenderson]

Do people think this was LTE or perhaps vortex ring? Is 700ft agl not on the upper limit of the dead man's curve?

Bobby

[JimBall]

LTE ? Vortex ring ? Deadman's Curve ? These aren't ATC issues and you shouldn't let them cloud your judgement. For the record, LTE was invented by Bell to cover-up the bad design of a their tail rotor, vortex ring is also known as settling with power and DC applies to any helicopter which is upto 400ft AGL with little or no airspeed.

There all sorts of eddys and currents around an airfield at low level. For instance, an airfield tends to be in open countryside - so the buildings cause immense turbulence to a smooth airflow going over the countryside. Chuck in some wayward vortices from aircraft and you have soup of distraction for a helicopter pilot trying to hold a hover.

Not much power in hand, unfamiliar surroundings, high tension through worrying about encroaching into the wrong area, rapid fire tower ATC.......and so the soup gets even more distracting.

And suddenly our lowtimer isn't doing the primary job : "keep flying the aircraft" is the mantra.

A busy commercial airport is no place for a low-level, low time student helicopter pilot on a solo - unless they've been there dual before.

Same day, same wx, same turbulence, same helicopter - experienced pilot with airport familiarity. No problem.

[cdb]

Here's the link to the rotorheads topic...

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3273511

[throw a dyce]

Jim Ball,
I think that the main problem is lack of ATCO awareness in this particular incident.At Aberdeen which has one or two helis,any Atco will tell you that what that controller said about hovering on base leg,was not a good idea.We can they you all the quirks of different marks of the same heli,and even different company ops.One of the very basic things you learn in the Tower there is any heli (AS3B to R22)can't/won't/shouldn't hold on a base leg in a hover.I had to correct an ''expert instructor'' at the college who said that many years ago.I said if it was the old S61 full of big fat heavy oillies,it would be lucky to stay in the air on one engine even at 50kts.
I think Atco's should have a basic understanding of how to deal with helis.It would seem that this is missing.:suspect:

[ShyTorque]

Seems to me the problem possibly occurred because the ATCO incorrectly said "hover" when "hold" would have been better; the student incorrectly tried to comply with an instruction of which he was incapable.

Mistakes made on both sides, lessons learned by those involved and hopefully everyone reading this thread (and the forthcoming MOR report). Hopefully it won't happen again due to increased awareness.

Some helicopters (and pilots) can hover out of ground effect sometimes, depending on a number of things; such as aircraft all up mass, wind velocity, density altitude, pilot training and experience, how sharp he is on the day, availability of sufficient visual cues etc. Sometimes I might choose a hover over an orbit. However, ATC can't be expected to know; it's up to me to decide.

Regarding the requirement to orbit rather than hover to cross at LHR. I fully appreciate the reason of expediting the crossing by keeping some airspeed but often, ATC ask the pilot to confirm visual with a particular airliner on final approach (seldom the closest one) just as the airfield is behind due to the orbit (maybe I'm just unlucky). He can't see any airliners on finals, due to finals being completely out of his field of view!

"AirBland Airbus on finals at three miles" - they all look the same to most helicopter pilots, especially at that range. Until the pilot has it in sight and correctly identified, he cannot confirm so there will be a delay in answering, or a "Standby". ATC don't like delays in answering or confirmation.

On the other hand, if pilots were allowed to come to a safe hover, which must be the pilot's discretion, he can a) keep his orientation and retain the big picture of where the airliners are and b), he is in a position to immediately accelerate to the speed he would have been orbitting at. So it would probably make little difference in many cases.

In conclusion of this long diatribe, I think the pilot should be left to make his own decision on how to hold. :)

[throw a dyce]

I wonder if it's got anything to do with the recent introduction of heli phraseology.Hold (position?) in the hover is now standard R/T,but applicable on runways etc.Might be a case of right phrase,wrong circumstance.If that's the case has the CAA introduced dodgy R/T?
We used the phrase''Lift into the hover,standby for departure'' for 30years and 1.5 million heli movements.Never went wrong,as heli pilots always use those terms.:= now.

[Gonzo]

Regarding the requirement to orbit rather than hover to cross at LHR. I fully appreciate the reason of expediting the crossing by keeping some airspeed but often, ATC ask the pilot to confirm visual with a particular airliner on final approach (seldom the closest one) just as the airfield is behind due to the orbit (maybe I'm just unlucky). He can't see any airliners on finals, due to finals being completely out of his field of view!

True, which is why the phraseology used should be: "Report visual with xxxxx". If you are, say so. If you're not, say so too, and report when you are visual. Like you say, we do try and give you the maximum amount of notice so you can position to make an expeditious crossing. That might mean that we give you the trraffic when you're 'outbound'. If that's the case, we all expect you to say "Roger, looking.." etc etc.

[aluminium persuader]

There is sadly an increasing lack of ATC appreciation of a/c perf in both f/w & rotary areas. We are getting more & more info from the airliners which is great, but losing it at the other end. CAA ATCOs used to get a PPL course as part of their training. By the time I went through it was down to 15hrs & if a cadet really didn't want to they were not compelled to do any flying. I believe it's even less now. It is even feasible to train as an ATCO & work your entire career without ever having seen an aircraft!

A controller cannot prescribe the traffic type or levels of experience of the pilots flying into his/her airfield & therefore really must have a good general understanding of the perf of all classes of a/c. Note I don't say "intimate" or "type". Just general helos, general sep. general mep, general t-p, general jet.

At the end of the day, though, lack of knowledge on any individual's part makes us all look daft. So pilots - take an ATCO flying & ATCOs - get the pilots into your tower! (Both sides should know the choccie biccy rule!)
:ok:

ap

[Gonzo]

Aerodrome and APR students still get the 15 hours, Area students spend more time with BA in their sims.

[2 sheds]

In the UK, with NATS of course.

In view of the above, perhaps it would be useful to sacrifice five of those hours for a couple of hours dual in a Robbo.

[throw a dyce]

Not sure what the use of BA sim time is,if you can't fly in first place.In the Old days:bored: we did the full PPL,which was part of the course,and then some BA sim time at Braincrank.That was useful because we all could fly to a standard that we didn't crash that often.
Our local heli training school offers discount flights for ATC staff.It's well worth it,and I have a new respect for heli flying.At 40kts it's OK just like a funny version of fixed wing.Hovering :mad: :mad: is like a balancing a Unicycle with a boiled egg on your head.
It is interesting that some of the students they get see the heli as a fashion item like the porsche etc.Some of the tales they have about the people they get it with lots of money to burn is hard to believe.

[Gonzo]

Because those students going on to do things such as Clacton or Antrim at a centre, it was judged that time exposed to an IFR multi engine airliner type environment was more relevant than spending 15 hours circuit bashing in a Tomahawk at Wycombe.

[throw a dyce]

I don't think it's such a good idea.To fly an airliner simulator takes a lot of instrument flying which is advanced.Circuit bashing and learning the basics is good experience,because you are operating in a real traffic environment.Also to go solo is very rewarding.
When we did our BA sim,we could appreciate it more and were doing some advanced flying.Cat 3B approaches but we were the handling pilots.However unless we had done Instrument flying in a Cessna,it would have been more of a game than something of value.The basics to flying are the same for a Cessna or 747;but you learn the basics in a Cessna first.

[aluminium persuader]

I think both are valid. The airliners have a lot more systems to go wrong which would not necessarily be obvious to a controller or necessitate declaring an emergency, yet would still impose a high workload or restrict the handling in some way, and this is best (and easiest) demonstrated by watching aircrew in a sim.
For the smaller, "simpler" a/c & helos experiencing it yourself is probably the best teacher.
I certainly hold that being a pilot makes me a better ATCO and vice versa.
ap