Rotary flying?

[low n' slow]

Hi all!
I'm sorry if this message is on the wrong board, but I wanted to ask you non-civilians directly.
At the moment I'm schooling for a civilian CPL (A). As you all know the Afghanistan situation and the bombings in NY have changed the scene ragarding Airline recruiting. This has made me think about my future.
I've allways been interested in everything that flies, however, a helicopter has allways caught my interest more than an aeroplane. And this is what my question is regarding: What is it like to fly a helicopter? What does a routine flight involve? And a question I've pondered upon lately is how rotary pilots copy clearences. Do you pick up the "pinto" and write it down
or do you memorize it (hands on stick and throttle/pitch?)?
My intentions are to send in an application to the Swedish Helicopter Unit, but before I do that I would like some insight in what a successful application might result in.

Best regards/lns

[fobotcso]

l'ns, Hi! You (and probably I) are going to get some banter about this but I'll try to give a straight answer to get you going.

I've done lots of both fixed- and rotary-wing flying in a wide variety of jobs. It's difficult looking back to say which I would rather have done from the outset if I could only have done one. But if I have to give an answer, here goes...

In FW, aircraft can differ widely in systems and flying techniques and difficulties. However, once in a job, the daily task is much the same during your period on that aircraft (tour of duty). Satisfaction comes from operating successfully some highly complex machinery and flying to precise limits.

In RW, although they may look different, helicopters tend to fly much like one another with of course detailed differences of size and complexity. But the daily jobs can vary widely unless you are in a miserable taxi job. One day it can be lifting loads, another day high altitude search and rescue and another day operating in confined spaces and so on. And there's a lot of sense in stopping before landing rather than the other way around.

On balance if I could only have done one of the two I would choose RW for the variety of jobs and the ability to
keep going in bad weather. The mental challenge is demanding (and satisfying when you get it right) when the operational scenario is changing rapidly and there always seem to be more balls in the air than you have brain cells for.

But nothing would ever replace the kick up the arse from a 1:1 thrust weight ratio take-off or decelerating trainsition to the hover in jet VSTOL. Or Air Combat Manœuvering: or aerobatics: or getting places quickly: or ...

Remember, I said on balance. In the ideal world you get to do them all but that is unusual.

Good luck in whatever you do. It's a great profession with the best seat in the house. Now, where's that flak jacket?

[whowhenwhy]

"You put on phenomenal amounts of power, and it takes off. What it should do of course is screw itself into the ground! Even the people who build them don't have much faith in them, so they build them with ski's, wheels, floats...anything that gives them a fighting chance." These are the famous words of an ex-Lightning mate who joined the dark side to become now an old and bold air traffic controller. David Gunson where are you? :D :D :D :D

Sorry, was this too predictable?

[Edited for being too predictable}

Things are always worse than they seem!

[ 14 November 2001: Message edited by: whowhenwhy ]

[Low and Slow]

Just to be clear Low n' Slow is not me, or Low and Slow. He, the other one is not me. I am different. OK.. actually very different.

.... I'll get me coat

[Arm out the window]

Having experienced both kinds (Country AND Western!) to a decent degree, my answer to the original post is this (others may have entirely different reasons for preferring one kind of flying over another):

All kinds of flying have their own special peculiarities, and you always learn from new experiences. For me, though, the essence of flying is having a responsive aircraft that I am directly guiding by my control inputs.

Helicopters fit this bill perfectly, and as was mentioned above, you do interesting and varied work with them on the whole.

Manoeuverable aerobatic fixed-wing are also great to fly, but the downer here is that there aren't too many fixed-wing jobs outside the military that require this kind of flying, so a good deal of your flying is drilling along in a straight line watching fuel and ETA trends develop. Certainly this can be interesting when things are tight, but a bit of variety is the go, I reckon.

Still, airlines are mainly where the big money is, so that's got to be a consideration for a professional pilot.

[BEagle]

Whilst airlines were once famous for higher salaries, I reckon it won't be too long before, fed up with having to show up at airports 2 hours before a 1 hour flight, the business community will turn increasingly to private high-speed helicopters for intra-European travel. So professional non-military helicopter jobs might perhaps be on the increase over the next few years?

Despite all the joking about living in holes in the ground and eating mud, I'm sure that helicopter flying would be something you'd enjoy hugely - not that for me it would replace the excitement of watching 'transonic jump' on the altimeter at 250 ft whilst chasing a couple of Jaguars into Otterburn range many years ago......

If you can join the Swedish helicopter force directly (something, Army Air Corps aside you couldn't do in the UK) - then go for it! After a few years you might then get a job flying wealthy business folk around with a couple of Scandiwegian lovelies pouring them ice-cold Absolut in the back!

[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[low n' slow]

Thanx guys!
As you all seem to say, all forms of flying have their high-lights. My dad has been with SAS for a good many years now and I have had the oportunity to see him in action many times. What this type of flying (as with all flying) is about, is eliminating all safety hazards. This often means that the AP is engaged at an early stage of the flight and is disengaged as late as possible. Even though this is the safest way to do it, I don't think this flying is for me. This I have gathered from comparing long navigation routes with short-field take-offs and landings or low navigations below 500 ft. The latter seems to incorporate the pilot more in the actual flying and I find this very stimulating.

I have written to the recruiting officer for some more information on the outfit, but I think I've decided which path to try initially upon graduation. As you all say, the helicopter buissness hasn't been struck as hard as the airline buissness and I believe the future is bright. Thanks again for helping me in this and good luck to you all with everything.

regards/lns