AS 350: "Hold my beer son and watch this!" [Archive]

Bhutan_H130

2nd Jul 2018, 12:31

I don’t think it was intended . You never do climbing high g turns to the right in a squirrel ... everyone knows that !!

Without looking for a keypad quarrel, honestly? I believe it was fully intentional. You have to really start worrying if "a pilot" ended in this manoeuvre unintentionally. I believe it was skilfully executed but that is the only positive comment I have on the air show. Yes a barrel roll is gentle on the "G" at the top, but then there is the exit at the bottom. I ask if this guy has any respect for the regulations/RFM? How many times has he done similar things? If we have to have two schools in this regard (for and against), then I am in the nay group. If he was flying my helicopter, it would have been his last time. If I was issuing his license, he would have lost it.

I hope I am going to be allowed to "have my own opinion" in this matter?

Stratofreighter

2nd Jul 2018, 14:04

https://jalopnik.com/helicopters-always-make-a-big-entrance-but-this-is-next-1827240044

RMK

2nd Jul 2018, 14:57

Seems he's just flying a recce and having a good look around before landing - safety first.

BTW, did anyone notice the next squirrel video on that same site? (furry kind; not AS350 Ecureuil kind): Squirrel Flying (https://9gag.com/gag/a7MAv22?ref=fsidebar)

[email protected]

2nd Jul 2018, 17:01

Nigel - it is quite acceptable to go past 90 degree AoB on a well flown wingover - air combat manoeuvring is where you would learn this sort of stuff - or just a normal SH Squadron back in the 80s.

The wingover in the video is well controlled and looks smooth throughout which wouldn't be the case if he had reached jackstall/servo transparency.

atakacs

2nd Jul 2018, 17:30

Any idea of the specifics? Where? When.?

Evalu8ter

2nd Jul 2018, 19:12

"Big, harsh control inputs" - Crikey Crab, I think we only flew once and you've pretty well summed up my flying career!

nigelh

2nd Jul 2018, 20:53

Bhutan / Crab ..... you may be right but it looked to me like an abrupt climb and roll which is what would’ve happened in jack stall .....also it looked to me to go fully inverted which is not a wing over . Either way he wouldn’t be flying my 350 again if I saw that !!

SuperF

2nd Jul 2018, 21:05

I agree nigel. any pilot i employed doing that would be gone, and sued for replacement aircraft. hope the pilot has good personnel insurance!

helicopter-redeye

2nd Jul 2018, 21:47

The guys in red were probably glad of the lift home. Could have been a long walk.

[email protected]

3rd Jul 2018, 04:51

Nige - if he retains positive G throughout, the helicopter doesn't know whether it is inverted or not and there is no difference in the stress on the aircraft at that point than there is in a 'normal' wingover.

As someone pointed out earlier, the recovery with high speed, if you let the nose drop on exit too much, is probably the most stressful - but no more than flying at VNE when heavy and encountering some chop or turbulence. Would you sack a pilot for having that experience and 'overstressing' your aircraft?

malabo

3rd Jul 2018, 04:52

Wasn't aerobatics, just a steep pull-up and wingover. A reverse-half-cuban would be the closest description, but carefully flown to not overstress or to get too close to zero or negative g. Smoothly done, with slight positive g throughout. Helicopter doesn't know it is inverted, all it knows is what g forces it is experiencing. Not just the realm of the military, though at least that would have some sanction and probably better organized training.

Typing too slow, looks like Crab beat me to it.

peely

3rd Jul 2018, 05:11

Ok, let’s start the debate about what constitutes Aerobatic Flight, which is prohibited in the Flight Manual.

Bhutan_H130

3rd Jul 2018, 05:14

This guy rolled inverted, yes well executed, but that does not change the facts. (If you kill someone but do it skilfully, does that make it OK?). The rules are there to protect. What if he made a mistake ito his energy management or evaluation of the conditions? At relatively low level? What if he was not on top of his game at that particular day and misjudged the speed and g-load? You condone this kind of behaviour, it says something about you.

Nige - if he retains positive G throughout, the helicopter doesn't know whether it is inverted or not and there is no difference in the stress on the aircraft at that point than there is in a 'normal' wingover.

As someone pointed out earlier, the recovery with high speed, if you let the nose drop on exit too much, is probably the most stressful - but no more than flying at VNE when heavy and encountering some chop or turbulence. Would you sack a pilot for having that experience and 'overstressing' your aircraft?

Rules are not written in terms of what the aircraft knows. Mostly they are written in blood.

Bell_ringer

3rd Jul 2018, 05:19

Ok, let’s start the debate about what constitutes Aerobatic Flight, which is prohibited in the Flight Manual.

Like it or not the aircraft isn't certified for that and any regulator wouldn't take a good view of it, no matter how well it was executed.
It would be considered unnecessary for civilian flying and which operator would have that as SOP?
Is it good airmanship or is it just someone showing off their superior skills? the latter being a shorter route to statisticsville.
Great to watch and if this was a military display then there would be a big thumbs up, for everyone it appears like overcompensating for other inadequacies :}

Rotorbee

3rd Jul 2018, 05:41

Banks over 60°? Check
Pitch attitude over 30°? Check
"Aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."? Check
Pretty much aerobatic. I wonder, if Airbus found out whose ship that was.
You may do that in a controlled environment like the military ... as a test pilot, but in the civil world, there is just no need for it. If you want to do it, look first at the Flying Bulls BO 105 and the additional maintenance aerobatics require.
It is always the same: "carfully flown" justifies everything? From my point of view, the video quality is much too low to see if it was "carfully flown". I am not sure, if there was always positive g in the right direction. Actually I doubt it. "Carfully flown" you might be able to roll an R22, but the margin is so small, I would not try it, even if I had rolled the BO 105 a thousand times. The margin of a squirrel is much bigger, but still, it isn't made for it.
I have seen operators where the chief pilot and owner does stuff like that. Unfortunately his company has a high accident rate and I lost a friend who worked for him, due to maintenance issues with one ship. This attitude creeps into everything in a company and makes everything unsafe.

nigelh

3rd Jul 2018, 07:33

crab ..If it is no big deal then show me videos of someone doing one ! Even Dennis doesn’t get anywhere near that inverted in his display. No one is disputing that you can fly inverted with no negative g ...but can you do it without over stressing parts ?
chuck aaron obviously can’t as he has to have a titanium head etc etc and life items are slashed !!

Evil Twin

3rd Jul 2018, 08:03

Bhutan_H130

3rd Jul 2018, 08:37

I've sat and watched the video a number of times and I'm not sure he ever is inverted. I think the camera angle may make it appear that way but I'm not convinced. Pretty crazy thing to do nonetheless in the world of youtube and <strike>narcissism</strike> social media and everyone on earth carrying a video camera in their pocket. I expect his boss won't be best pleased.<br /> ET, so we debated "aerobatic", now are going about "Inverted"? I don't want to engage in this but I don't think this is going to turn out better than before. It will continue to put the "It's OK" group in a poor light. As a professional pilot, one should be able to show that ability to distinguish.. ?

RVDT

3rd Jul 2018, 09:08

I'm with Evil Twin - nowhere near inverted and if you download the video and look at it frame by frame possibly nothing above 90 degrees anywhere.

Camera angles can lie.

As for "jack stall" - miles away from it. People banging on about "stress this and stress that" how much G do you think you can actually pull in a helicopter?

Looks like a B3 to me - it can probably lift its own weight on the hook - and then you make a 60 degree turn - 2G but not sustainable - 4 times it's empty weight - that would make a load of about 3.5 times what you see here.

The movie looks "interesting" in that it is unusual but not as extreme as made out to be.

Evil Twin

3rd Jul 2018, 09:43

<br /> ET, so we debated "aerobatic", now are going about "Inverted"? I don't want to engage in this but I don't think this is going to turn out better than before. It will continue to put the "It's OK" group in a poor light. As a professional pilot, one should be able to show that ability to distinguish.. ?

There have been a couple of posts including yours that mention this manoeuvre being inverted. 'I' don't think it was looking in detail at the video. The airmanship etc. I never mentioned in anyway apart from stating that this guys boss probably won't be pleased. I have no interest in getting into a debate about whether it's ok or not as the implied overtone in one direction or the other will tend to tar one with the same brush. I never said it was ok, just that it didn't look inverted.

I'll watch from the sidelines from here on.

n5296s

3rd Jul 2018, 10:00

> how much G do you think you can actually pull in a helicopter?

I've often wondered that. One thing that struck me about the R44 (maybe others too) is that it has no published G limit (not in the PoH anyway). Is this because you will run out of lift long before you break anything? Or what? Some helicopters CAN be looped - leaving aside the question of whether it's a good idea or not (yes, I do know it isn't) - meaning they can pull at least 3G. I asked my instructor at the time why there were no limits and he didn't really know. Yet every fixed wing aircraft, even if all it has is a 65HP engine, has published G limits.

nigelh

3rd Jul 2018, 11:40

Give the pilot the benefit of the doubt re camera angles ....also agree it is v unlikely to be jack stall as he looks v light . I think we all need to be aware that when people video you wazzing around it may end up on a public site !!!! It was definitely not very mechanically sympathetic and still on that basis he wouldn’t fly for me .

[email protected]

3rd Jul 2018, 13:41

I have flown a helicopter with a Gmeter fitted - some of the Mk 7 Lynx at Middle Wallop that were used for the Blue Eagles displays - and I have flown all the display manoeuvres many times including loops, barrel rolls and back flips.

The prime area of concern regarding component life was in fact the TR - the TRGB is on a long lever away from the MRH.

A loop was generally 2 to 2.5 G depending on how smoothly you pulled up and pulled out and a barrel roll about the same; even a back flip to flyaway was under 2.5 G. The only manoeuvre that exceeded that was the back flip from hover to hover - 1000' to 700' followed by a second back flip - it was difficult to get it back to the hover at the required height in much less than 3G.

Air combat manoeuvring involved 180, 270 and 360 wingovers, almost all around the 2G mark - exactly the same as a 60 degree AoB sustained turn.

I am not giving carte-blanche to cowboy flying but a well-trained pilot can conduct some of these 'acrobatic' manoeuvres quite safely and with less stress on the aircraft than a heavy USL or flying at VNE for hours at high AUM.

Helicopters tend to look inverted even at substantially lower AoB so don't be misled by a poor quality video.

Ascend Charlie

3rd Jul 2018, 19:10

I asked my instructor at the time why there were no limits and he didn't really know. Yet every fixed wing aircraft, even if all it has is a 65HP engine, has published G limits.

All helos are designed to cope with a 60 degree bank turn, which is 2g, plus a gust factor and a bit for mum and the kids - usually set at 2.7 g, so their accepted teetering head limits are +1 to +2g, allowing the fudge factor to be set at 2.7. But that is when you can expect the head to pop off. The lower limit, as shown, is +1, meaning it ain't designed for nose-overs that get less than 1g, and certainly not negative g.

Stronger machines with a rigid head like the BK117 have a published limit of -1 to +3.5, so there is still a fudge factor above that one.

SuperF

3rd Jul 2018, 20:51

to see how "inverted" or not he got, the easiest way to see is to get a model helicopter and hold it at the same angle as can be seen in the vid.

The point where it gets really difficult for the pilot is when the skids cross over each other while the head is pointed at the ground, try doing that with the model and get the same sight picture, he is well past 90*.

If you really want to see how smooth you are doing turns etc, simply stick a load on your hook, with a weigh gauge. Done badly you could almost double the weight of the load, done well the load on the gauge shouldn't change much at all. I agree that smoothly done turns could have less strain than flying in rough weather, as i have seen hook loads vary by quite a bit while flying through turbulance, however it also comes down to is it necessary, and how much of a cowboy do you need to be.

If that flight is alright, whats everyones opinion of the video of the guy flying his 22 into the landing spot in his hangar? Just because you can, should you? and where is Airmanship in both cases? is one ok because its a 350, the other one not because its a 22? or one is fine because its Europe the other must be insane because its outside of Europe??

Bhutan_H130

3rd Jul 2018, 22:31

I am now starting to ask why this guy is defended? Look up the definition for aerobatic flight in your Regulations and stop being silly about this stunt.. It is not a normal manouvre in any book and it is not legal ito the flight manual So what is the point in defending this? What is the motivation Interesting

Two's in

3rd Jul 2018, 23:39

So even if we can agree it wasn't actually aerobatic flight, even if we can agree it was within the aircraft operating limits, and even if we can agree it was smoothly executed, that still leaves the fact that the approach to the cliff and the subsequent maneuvering left little or no options for an escape path should anything decide to fail at that point. That's obviously fine for this pilot, but I prefer to have somewhere else to go on the day, rather than straight to the fireball.

gulliBell

4th Jul 2018, 02:18

The manoeuvre was operationally inefficient and un-neccessary, I think we can all agree with that.
As for where it happened. I note in the video the cars are driving on the right side of the road. Apart from that, not much else to go by.

[email protected]

4th Jul 2018, 06:24

Bhutan_H130

4th Jul 2018, 06:53

BhutanH130 - it very much depends on your perspective as to how you view this 'stunt' - I don't know your experience or age but I am looking at it from a career of 35 years of military flying that includes a great deal of low flying, fighter evasion, air combat manoeuvring and other similar disciplines so in that context a simple wingover really isn't a big deal.

If all you do is fly straight and level from A to B with pax at a safe height then it probably looks horrendous and seems the most heinous crime to fly such a manoeuvre.

Apart from anything else - it looks like fun - because it is - something that seems to be progressively legislated out of aviation.

I will make this final comment on this matter.
With 35 years of military experience, one would expect a bit more maturity. If you are looking for fun, do it in your own time on your own machine and one that will not penalise later passengers or crew for the fun you had. You are wrong, you can have fun in aviation, but commercial aviation is not first supposed to be fun. It is firstly supposed to be safe. You more than most should know that rules and regulations are written in blood.

Rotorbee

4th Jul 2018, 06:54

So even if we can agree it wasn't actually aerobatic flight...
It was
even if we can agree it was within the aircraft operating limits
It wasn't and G load isn't the only limiting factor.
it looks like fun - because it is - something that seems to be progressively legislated out of aviation.
Well, yes and rightfully so, because too many people die doing "fun" stuff with toys which are not intended for "fun" stuff.
@CRAB
This is not the military. You do not know, how many times that guy has already f**** up the same oh so fun maneuver, because he is self trained. I can only hope, the mechanics know about this pilot and his hobby and do very careful preflights.

[email protected]

4th Jul 2018, 09:33

Rotorbee

4th Jul 2018, 12:27

@Crab: We all know, what you have done as a pilot. Quite impressive certainly, (that last sentence in that other post wasn't meant to you BTW).
If you have done it legally, why do you give the impression of sanctioning the presumably not so legal way of doing things?
Outraged? Me? Just because there is another hot shot pilot who will eventually kill somebody? If he kills himself, I don't care. But he will probably transport people in a ship that was used beyond it's design limits. Right after the accident many people will call him the best pilot ever ("he was such an experienced pilot, said the widow ...") and after a few years the investigation will find, that he did so many stupid things, an accident was only a question of time. This story has repeated itself time and again, I am getting tired of them (had to read another one three days ago ... déjà vu, FI, great guy, super nice professional, hell of a pilot, rolled, spun and looped everything that had wings, killed himself and two students when the plane just could not take the beating any longer ... many knew, nobody said something due to peer pressure).
I have done things out of utter stupidity and it almost killed me as a student pilot, just because I followed the example of a more experienced pilot (he could do it, I don't). I have broken rules and got away with it, but these rules are made to protect me (well, most of them ...) and therefore for my own safety, I should do what I am told. There is still enough room for legal fun. I have started to take lessons in aerobatics (plank) and after an hour I have a rather unhealthy complexion (I still have hope it goes away one day), but what fun, and all legal.
I have decided for me to speak up, if I think people get dangerous. Which is encouraged by the authorities but frown upon by my peers.
At least I don't have anything on my conscience, if something happens.

I got pushed off the high horse quite often but have not hurt anybody in the process. Now I walk and lead the horse.

Bell_ringer

4th Jul 2018, 13:05

What's that old cliché - A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill?
You can bicker about camera angles and ability as much as you want. There is a time and a place for everything but
If you want to fly aerobatic manoeuvres then a squirrel while on the clock isn't it.
People with real skill know when to use it and don't find opportunities to demonstrate how good they are.
I would be surprised if he doesn't have a damp pair of pants seeing how much publicity this has got, though if he is South American he probably doesn't care :p
I am sure this chap or chapess (let's be honest it's a bloke, no woman would fly like that) is a terrific guy, well trained and very experienced but he sure doesn't seem to have great judgement, something I suspect the manufacturer, authority and (possibly) operator may agree with.

nigelh

4th Jul 2018, 14:18

Crab .... you seem to have changed !! Historically you have always been on the opposite side to me ... you preaching rules and caution and me a bit more gung ho !! Now even I am saying that it looks a bit much ( and yes I have done some aerobatic manoeuvres in the past ... maybe ) and you are saying yeah it’s fine ! I think if the video had been of me you would have had a different view !!!!

jellycopter

4th Jul 2018, 16:06

So it wasn't you then Nige? That's a relief.

(But then it wouldn't have been "Hold my beer son"..... More like "Hold my Veuve Cliquot son")

JJ

ralphmalph

4th Jul 2018, 16:24

Oh my. What was wrong with a constant angle approach to a confined'ish area pickup at a steady speed with an option in the event of engine failure that gave a little more time for thought. IMHO no need. I left front line military instruction in 2012, so I can only speak for then. If a crew flew like that for a routine pick up, they would be f££king grounded! The question would be "What was your imperative?" "Did it make the sortie more effective or safer?"

If not they would find my boot deep inside their arse. And thats not considering the thoughts if I owned/operated the aircraft. Bellend.

Its like the pumper slinging trees in IMC weather who was rapidly burning the aircraft life being "an amazing pilot" Loose your ego, if you need to throw it around to survive an approach to an LZ....fine, if not, stop f@cking around.

RVDT

4th Jul 2018, 16:40

As the video was taken pretty close to where I am currently located I did a little bit of digging online.

It wasn't too difficult to find the folks concerned as the area looked familiar. i.e. out the front window nearly.

As it has gone viral and all over the facing book apparently the perp is being lectured as we speak.

Not the smartest thing to do but I still have the opinion that it looks worse than it is and all the BS about "stressing the aircraft" is still BS.

I am sticking to my tag.

PS if you want to know who and where you have to buy the bridge I have for sale first.

arketip

4th Jul 2018, 16:52

PS if you want to know who and where you have to buy the bridge I have for sale first.

Not too difficult, name and company on the web.

RVDT

4th Jul 2018, 17:00

*****, non l'hai sentito da me e questo è tutto ciò che conta!

arketip

4th Jul 2018, 17:19

*****, non l'hai sentito da me e questo è tutto ciò che conta!

;) .

nigelh

4th Jul 2018, 18:06

Well Jelly .... you taught me that manoeuvre but with the caveat ... NEVER in a teetering head and then only when no cameras around !!!!
ps . My 109 is for sale fresh out of annual and
CHEAP or exchange/swap if you have any ideas . Thanks

dClbydalpha

4th Jul 2018, 18:38

The manouevre shown in the video is one I see most weeks. My experience is the apparent severity changes significantly with where I am stood, or more normally sat.

I'm not commenting on whether the pilot was within their rights. All I'm commenting on is that judging the extremity of the manouevre (and subsequent stress on the aircraft) based on a single point of view video is not reliable.

nigelh

4th Jul 2018, 19:47

I think we are already there with that conclusion......
all we are saying is that the particular manoeuvre was done in an inappropriate environment! ie against a cliff face with limited exit routes if it went Pete Tong .

dClbydalpha

4th Jul 2018, 20:44

I think we are already there with that conclusion......

I'm glad we are.

all we are saying is that the particular manoeuvre was done in an inappropriate environment! ie against a cliff face with limited exit routes if it went Pete Tong .
This one is well executed in an appropriate location.
https://www.tu.no/artikler/her-tar-det-nye-redningshelikopteret-en-akrobatisk-landing-pa-den-nye-sola-basen/395742

Thomas coupling

4th Jul 2018, 22:15

OMG!
I never ever thought i'd agree with the common sense nigelh has been stating on this topic AND disagree with Crab. WTF?
You've changed crab!
The manouevre was smoothly executed, beautifully caught on camera and may or may not have technically gone aerobatic.
BUT the pilot was a ******** for executing a manouevre inappropriate to the conditions prevailing.
He was almost certainly showing off, naive for being filmed in such an embarrasing situation and most definitely not operating within a safe flight regime should something even relatively minor have gone wrong like a bird strike or woe betide - more serious like a wire strike.
Nil points for professionalism. If he'd been employed by me he'd be sacked before he RTB'd.
TW*T. Methinks.

AAKEE

4th Jul 2018, 22:29

Some people on very high horses here, happy to criticise the pilot in the video despite not knowing who he is, his level of skill, his training, the aircraft configuration or pretty much anything.

Also on the high horses are those that claim they have never done anything the infringes any rules or regulations pertaining to flying, never lifted off too heavy, never flown too fast, never dealt with an emergenmcy the way it suited them rather than following the RFM, oversped the rotor. etc etc
.

Followed the thread but didn't actually have anything to say before.

@crab: I'm with you for your statements so far.

Its seems like a civil helo probably making that manouver illegal but it wouldn't need to be unsafe in the right helo. From what I can see it looks like it was flown ok.
I wasn't trained on the AS350 and the servo transparency thing doesn't sound that nice in my ears( even for "normal" flying, because we have seen some accidents coming from that corner). I'm sure that if you are correctly trained to fly the AS350 you would be thought how to stay away from the limiting factors for the servo transparency thing. Just like the Bo105 and steep right turns at low speed.
I guess that a civil pilot cannot get to that corner of the envelope without braking the law several times, an he probably need to try-and-learn. That part would make it dangerous, not really knowing when trying. But if it was a pilot trained to fly close to the corners of the helo envelope and a lot of experience from this, I wouldn't se that manouver as unsafe at all.

I think we need to be able to understand the difference between 'illegal' and 'unsafe'. As per the civil definition, the manouver is unsafe. Its illegal, thereby no one can be properly trained to perform it safe. In the military world, manouvers close to this could be performed because it would be more dangerous not to. The military authority allowing the manouver knows if could be dangerous and therefore does what is possible to minimize the risk connected to that manouver. The trained pilot could safely (and illegally) perform the manouver.

The 60 degree bank or 30 attitude doesn't make the limits for all aircrafts safety envelope. An Extra-aircraft-rated fixed wing pilot without aerobatic training is limited to 60 degrees AOB/ 30 nose up/down but only because he/she isn't trained for anything else.

AAKEE

4th Jul 2018, 22:37

You've changed crab!
The manouevre was smoothly executed, beautifully caught on camera and may or may not have technically gone aerobatic.
BUT the pilot was a ******** for executing a manouevre inappropriate to the conditions prevailing.
He was almost certainly showing off, naive for being filmed in such an embarrasing situation and most definitely not operating within a safe flight regime should something even relatively minor have gone wrong like a bird strike or woe betide - more serious like a wire strike.
Nil points for professionalism. If he'd been employed by me he'd be sacked before he RTB'd.
TW*T. Methinks.

Yes, absolutely. I don't see crab saying otherwise ?

[email protected]

5th Jul 2018, 04:55

Thanks AAKEE - at least someone is reading what I post:ok:

nigelh

5th Jul 2018, 11:51

Crab ... you said
Nigel - it is quite acceptable to go past 90 degree AoB on a well flown wingover
so you are saying that effective inverted flight is acceptable? Up against a cliff face picking up pax ?
We all know you are an ex Mil fighter Ace , because you have told us umpteen times before 🤔, but we are talking civvy pilot , civvy Helicoper and civvy maintenance....not military.
ps . By the way I am quite capable of doing rolls in my Helicoper , let alone 90deg + turns . Why don’t I ?
because I pay the bills and I don’t think my insurance co would be very happy to see it !!!
My God ... TC and I on the same page ... who would have thought that would happen ...

[email protected]

5th Jul 2018, 15:38

Crab ... you said
Nigel - it is quite acceptable to go past 90 degree AoB on a well flown wingover yes I did and it is - I didn't say any Tom, Dick or Harry should try it

so you are saying that effective inverted flight is acceptable? Up against a cliff face picking up pax ? it's not really inverted flight since it isn't steady state - it is just overbanking. he is not up against a cliff face when he flys the manoeuvre and by the time he picks up the pax he is in a normal approach and landing configuration.

By the way I am quite capable of doing rolls in my Helicoper , let alone 90deg + turns . Why don’t I ? that implies that you have done so...............or how do you know you are capable of it.

I'm not an ex-mil fighter ace ( you have told us you have enough money to run your own helos but I don't call you a spoilt rich man) but I have experience of manoeuvring a helicopter in what many think are extreme attitudes and you still don't know anything about the pilot in this video.

TC has clearly forgotten some of his history in uniform...........

nigelh

5th Jul 2018, 16:48

Crab ... the point is this isn’t a military exercise.
and come on , you know you do bang on a bit about mil flying ! Just remember that most pilots do not get the sort of training to do extreme manoeuvres so how do they learn ?? On the job in the Co Heli 🙈

Fareastdriver

5th Jul 2018, 17:25

Just remember that most pilots do not get the sort of training to do extreme manoeuvres

Maybe he had?

[email protected]

5th Jul 2018, 17:57

Crab ... the point is this isn’t a military exercise. no but you don't know what sort of exercise it was - certainly not public transport ops.

As FED points out, he might be a very experienced pilot, even a test pilot, you don't know but are determined to pass judgement on him.

If I bang on about mil flying it is because it is what I have done for 35 years and the variety, challenges and perhaps even danger are difficult to explain to those who haven't experienced it.

I'm not going to get into another civ vs mil pissing contest because there are good and bad pilots on both sides.

However, those concerned about how 'safe' commercial aviation is, conveniently ignore how few hours are mandated for a type rating, even on complex types, before you can fly pax when you have barely learned the aircraft systems - that wouldn't happen in the military.

homonculus

5th Jul 2018, 18:02

I dont really care whether Crab can convince us that this chap was trained, did fly within the Airbus limits, and didnt put anyone at risk. The issue is EXAMPLE. Civilian rotary flying, whether we like it or not, is a privilege. It shouldn't be, but many countries effectively ban it. Others restrict it. And some are reviewing it. Every time we fly, whether as a newbie or an ex military professional, we need to set an example. Every time you make excessive noise, annoy people on the ground or behave like a p*** you increase opposition to our sport, our hobby, our transportation in business or our livelihood. Politicians need nothing more than a couple of accidents to add further restrictions which will cost people their jobs.

Professional pilots in particular should set an example of safe considerate flying. Whether this was safe is irrelevant. It will appear to some outsiders as dangerous and was unecessary

whoknows idont

5th Jul 2018, 21:34

Professional pilots in particular should set an example of safe considerate flying. Whether this was safe is irrelevant. It will appear to some outsiders as dangerous and was unecessary
I second that!

Well Jelly .... you taught me that manoeuvre but with the caveat ... NEVER in a teetering head and then only when no cameras around !!!!
ps . My 109 is for sale fresh out of annual and
CHEAP or exchange/swap if you have any ideas . Thanks
Very smooth change of subjects, nigel! :D

ShyTorque

5th Jul 2018, 23:17

Some thirty one years ago, I was an RAF helicopter display pilot. I was allowed and authorised to fly manoeuvres that squadron helicopter pilots were prohibited from flying. The manoeuvres flown in my display were quite extreme, bearing in mind that it was a seven tonne helicopter with a fully articulated rotor head and were classed as semi-aerobatic. I successfully flew my season without mishap but two other pilots subsequently copied the more extreme manoeuvres I had developed and unfortunately damaged the aircraft so the display was discontinued (and hasn't been flown since 1994, although the type remains in squadron service).

Although I have considerable experience of flying the type of helicopter in the video, I would not carry out that short of manoeuvre in those circumstances. Why? Because there was absolutely no need to do it and there was some risk to the aircraft - it was unnecessary showboating during a routine job.

[email protected]

6th Jul 2018, 06:33

Come on Shy - are you really telling me in all your time on Pumas, you never used a wingover arrival to insert or extract troops where it wasn't really necessary?

The unfortunate fact is that every man and his dog has a camera on their phone nowadays so things that previously went unadvertised now appear on social media in seconds.

Nigel has admitted that he has been taught and flown such manoeuvres so there is an element of double standards here.

I am not defending the pilot in question in his choice of time and place for his wingover but the thread started about servo transparency (which it clearly wasn't) and has turned into a Spanish Inquisition for anyone who dares to fly other than straight and level.

In terms of danger to the aircraft in the video - what exact danger was there? The fact that it was filmed from a cliff ignores the acres of fresh air he was actually flying in and the final approach to the cliff would have been almost identical had he started 3 miles out in a constant angle approach.

Knowing your aircraft and how it (and you) behaves in more advanced handling conditions might make the difference when you get caught out by weather, wires or another aircraft - handling skills are taught in the military for good reasons.

evil7

6th Jul 2018, 08:17

76fan

6th Jul 2018, 08:41

Totally agree with homonculus (https://www.pprune.org/members/194099-homonculus) #70.
Helicopters performing aerobatics never look pretty and do nothing to help the civil aviation helicopter scene where many of the public regard helicopters as noisy expensive toys. The commercial helicopter world does not need "cowboy" pilots who want to show off. If you had reason to fly like that in the Services then fine but in no way does it fit the image of a "professional pilot" in the commercial world.

homonculus

6th Jul 2018, 09:06

Crab

Following your logic, I presume you would defend a fixed wing pilot doing a wingover / semi aerobatics in a A380 coming into LHR - if not with passengers, then on a positioning flight......After all I have seen some really good aerobatics at the Farnborough airshow with the A380 so must be safe :ugh:

Many of my passengers are, if not frightened, then at least anxious. They need reassurance, and want a nice smooth trip. Regulated aerobatics at airshows thrill little boys, and many big boys. Aerobatics like this terrify potential passengers and give ammunition to our distractors. You may have a nice military pension, but many other pilots are desperate for work. We need passengers and the ability to fly them

HeliboyDreamer

6th Jul 2018, 09:48

You never do climbing high g turns to the right in a squirrel ... everyone knows that !!

Sorry to interrupt the heated conversation but anyone care to explain the above to a newbie pilot with no knowledge of AS350?

gulliBell

6th Jul 2018, 10:13

Sorry to interrupt the heated conversation but anyone care to explain the above to a newbie pilot with no knowledge of AS350?

In the AS350 the main rotor turns right (clockwise). So the helicopter is being turned left (anti-clockwise) by the torque reaction. So the natural tendency is left...if you turn right, you're fighting against the direction of the turning rotor.

nigelh

6th Jul 2018, 12:28

That is not the reason . The reason you do not do high g turns to the right is because that is the direction of roll if you over cook it and get jack stall which can make you go inverted . ( Not relevant here I think as he was v light )

[email protected]

6th Jul 2018, 13:25

Homonculus - trying to extrapolate from my logic is a fatuous and pointless argument and I haven't advocated this sort of manoeuvre with pax on board anywhere.

Apart from that, he probably didn't have pax on board since he looked like he was doing a pick up not a drop off so you can take one step back with your outrage.

Many of my passengers are, if not frightened, then at least anxious perhaps because they are flying with you.......:E mine aren't :)

homonculus

6th Jul 2018, 16:11

Crab, the point I am making is very simple: whether it can be done safely is not the issue. Please read my post - I suggested without passengers!

Happy to take a dig in the ribs about my flying skills - probably deserve it - but I do hope you arent being serious. A bit of insight into how the general public, or even a few military 'non volunteers' view flying, let alone flying in small aircraft and ones with no wings, is always useful. I join others in my surprise that having posted on safety for so long you now seem to support such behaviour.......

ShyTorque

6th Jul 2018, 16:57

@shy
Although I have considerable experience of flying the type of helicopter in the video, I would not carry out that short of manoeuvre in those circumstances. Why? Because there was absolutely no need to do it and there was some risk to the aircraft - it was unnecessary showboating during a routine job.

If you see things that way - tell me what „need“ is there for display flying with „extreme manoeuvres“ (that you developed).

Looks like two measures for pilots here!?!

The RAF required it. I was selected to do it. Obviously, you have no experience of the way the RAF requires its helicopter display pilots to train to their required standards, so you wouldn't realise the difference.

Crab, I was selected because of my professional attitude, not because I was prone to unnecessarily throwing the aircraft around on task in the hope of impressing the troops.
Later events (a couple of decades later) showed what can happen to a Puma when handled carelessly and without due caution - it bites very hard indeed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16227941

AnFI

7th Jul 2018, 00:07

Crab is bravely representing good logic. despite 'out raged of Tunbridge Wells'.

This is a tame manouver, it looks dramatic, because of the camera perspective. There is minimal g change, no stressing of aircraft obviously. I have rarely seen a bunch of supposed experienced pilots throw their indignant holier than thou toys out of the pram over such a trivial event.

Pilots need to be proficient at handling. If they are not then the consequences are worse.

(rare Crab agree :rolleyes:)

[email protected]

7th Jul 2018, 05:08

AnFI - :ok::ok::)

Homonculus - yes, it was a humorous dig, I work in a banter-rich environment so am used to being shot down myself. A wingover isn't unsafe - hence my defence - making an approach to a cliff in the mountains can be risky and you are always going to put yourself in a position when an engine failure (single or twin) is going to put you in the scenery.

Was it showboating? Yes certainly

Was it unnecessary? Yes absolutely

Was it unsafe? No

Shy - I know the process for selecting display pilots is rigorous and the position is not given to cowboys. However, the Puma force had a horrific reputation for poor supervision and 'spirited' handling, that Catterick crash didn't come from nowhere, it was borne out of many years of a poor culture. However, you didn't answer the question:)

nigelh

7th Jul 2018, 06:55

When you have to rely on AnFI for support you know you must be on a dicey wicket !!!
I really think this is done to death now .... i think we all agree the manoeuvre was not in itself dangerous, but it was an unnecessary risk . It also makes the pilot look a bit stupid and has certainly effected his reputation and future job prospects.... so how clever is that ??!! I just hope we don’t now see new Robbie pilots copying it because Crab says it’s fine to do !!

evil7

7th Jul 2018, 07:09

Crab wrote to shy

However, you didn't answer the questionimages/smilies/smile.gif

That was my thinking as well!

Anyway - I bow to you superior display pilot as I don’t know anything about the RAF, as you say.
Do you know me?😳

Sikpilot

7th Jul 2018, 07:22

If the pilot in this video owns the aircraft AND informs maintence of his sport flying so they can check for overstressing then all is good. If he is an employee joyriding when he should be working, he needs to be terminated ASAP. I dont know any owner that wouldnt fire him after seeing how he treats the aircraft. I feel sorry for the crews that have to fly that 350 not knowing what its been through and also for the mechanics who will be held responsible if there is a component failure they didnt find in time.

SARWannabe

7th Jul 2018, 07:59

What about the fact it is simply outside the aircraft limitations and therefore totally illegal?

yes - it could be flown positive G throughout and the helicopter doesn’t know which way up it is.

yes - some rules we would like to break because we have our own logic behind how we can mitigate the risks to an acceptable level.

Yes - if suitably trained this manoeuvre MAY not stress the airframe unnecessarily.

.... etc etc etc the arguments in people’s posts are good, in a world without rules.

However like them or not, we do have rules, and we can’t all go writing our own, however much we’d like to. A blatant public disregard for the operating limitations of the aircraft through showboating outside the governed military/display environment, says a lot about a persons attitude towards being above the regulations. For many people i’ve flown with in the past this is exactly what makes them a danger to themselves, and others who look up to them, or fly the aircraft after them....

Fareastdriver

7th Jul 2018, 08:13

I can't imagine how I managed to survive 48 years of wazzing.

John Eacott

7th Jul 2018, 08:21

I can't imagine how I managed to survive 48 years of wazzing.

Because we didn't have the dreaded ever present camera watching us :E

ShyTorque

7th Jul 2018, 10:49

Crab, I was able to fly a wing-over as well as any other pilot. It's just that I didn't do it in an attempt to impress the troops I was about to pick up - I learned very early in my time as a squadron pilot that many of them were scared enough as it was, at the thought of a helicopter trip. A scared, sickly soldier is no use to anybody and our job was to deliver them at very low level straight to the scene of the battle and get the hell out of it. There was no place for showboat flying.

As far as your point about poor supervision on the Puma fleet is concerned, all I can say is that during my time I would most certainly dispute that. I joined the OCU just after the fatal Norway accident (door fell off, taking out the tail rotor) and the fatal Belize accident (engine failure during a night departure from a jungle clearing). Six weeks after I joined my first squadron we lost another crew during Op Agila. After those accidents, supervision was very tight indeed and OCU output standards were also squeezed very tightly; no prisoners were taken - ask a few more on this forum who experienced it first hand.

Unfortunately, after the Chinook became the SH fleet's new toy in the 1980s, the Puma fleet was pushed to the background and this may be the reason standards slipped. Thankfully, by that time, I had moved on to fixed wing and was happily teaching aerobatics etc.

ShyTorque

7th Jul 2018, 11:02

As far as "aerobatting" helicopters goes, during my time as a heli display pilot, we were given a presentation by Westlands, who were also overseeing the "fully aerobatic" Lynx displays.
They were very keen to point out that flying any helicopter outside of its approved/certificated flight regime has an extremely detrimental effect on the fatigue life of major aircraft components, irrespective of what the pilot senses. The display Lynx was subjected to a much increased inspection regime and early major component changes. He also pointed out that the failure is unlikely to occur during the manoeuvre in question, but some incalculable time afterwards, so another pilot might become the unwitting victim of some pilot who has horsed the aircraft around for fun.

The type I displayed was later damaged during a display (tail rotor blades damage; not by me) and following investigation and evaluation by Boscombe Down, the display was banned.

aheoe26104

7th Jul 2018, 11:22

As an ex-military pilot (21 years experience), I would be very careful to side with anybody showing disregard for rules and the flight manual, particularly since in the forces that I came from, discipline was not negotiable. It is sad that the Royal Air Force was pulled into this discussion.

mickjoebill

7th Jul 2018, 23:11

Because we didn't have the dreaded ever present camera watching us https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/images/smilies/evil.gif

Not to forget that the presence of a camera is frequently a contributing factor to pilot error.

mjb

John Eacott

8th Jul 2018, 01:25

Not to forget that the presence of a camera is frequently a contributing factor to pilot error.

mjb

Opinion or backed by evidence, mjb? I suspect that the pilot of the video in the OP may not have flown as he did, had he known a recording would be made.

r22butters

8th Jul 2018, 02:09

BTW, did anyone notice the next squirrel video on that same site? (furry kind; not AS350 Ecureuil kind): Squirrel Flying (https://9gag.com/gag/a7MAv22?ref=fsidebar)

Now THAT was worth the click! :}

aheoe26104

9th Jul 2018, 01:58

I believe this subject has been thoroughly covered, I am just wondering what the aftermath of this episode is for the pilot in question. It would be very interesting to know..

GrayHorizonsHeli

9th Jul 2018, 13:30

what operating limitations did he exceed?
does anyone have that info as fact ? or is this all speculation?

As a maintenance guy, with loads of component overhaul experience, I only have unscheduled inspections from Chapter 05-50 that I can refer to when there is an incident. To date, I dont believe I have found an elusive manual for inspections after crazy flying.
if there is no recorded overtorque, no recorded overspeed, no chip lights, no sudden stoppage, or loss of oil, no hard landing, etc....then I have nothing further to inspect as Airbus has already deemed the aircraft capable of handling the flight envelope flown with-in those parameters. There isn't some magical manual that I refer to for Pilot operating like a nut.
I have to trust their engineering department has created a robust design that is capable of handing X amount of overstress from published limits.

aheoe26104

9th Jul 2018, 14:09

what operating limitations did he exceed?
does anyone have that info as fact ? or is this all speculation?

...... as Airbus has already deemed the aircraft capable of handling the flight envelope flown with-in those parameters.....

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

Fareastdriver

9th Jul 2018, 14:18

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

That doesn't mean to say it cannot do aerobatic manoeuvres. It just means that it is not certified to do them. When prototypes and early production machines are demonstrated by company test pilots they do a lot more then the one in this thread did to demonstrate what they are capable of if only to show how big a safety margin there is for normal operations.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread they have a more rigorous inspection programme but all pre-production machines have this anyway.

If something was possibly going to break they would fix it. Should one break without obvious damage like blade strikes or similar without any witnesses they could have a lot of explaining to do.

aheoe26104

9th Jul 2018, 14:27

That doesn't mean to say it cannot do aerobatic manoeuvres. It just means that it is not certified to do them. When prototypes and early production machines are demonstrated by company test pilots they do a lot more then the one in this thread did to demonstrate what they are capable of if only to show how big a safety margin there is for normal operations.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread they have a more rigorous inspection programme but all pre-production machines have this anyway.

If something was possibly going to break they would fix it. Should one break without obvious damage like blade strikes or similar without any witnesses they could have a lot of explaining to do.

My position is that it is irrelevant - and I am willing to put money on it that a safety investigation into this by a reputable body will find the same. It is wrong and even if he executed the manoeuvre perfectly, this kind of behaviour kills - eventually.

Fareastdriver

9th Jul 2018, 15:21

ShyTorque

9th Jul 2018, 15:35

I'm sure that the number killed flying a helicopter outside it's certification parameters is far outnumbered by pilots killed because they cannot handle one when it goes outside their narrow flying abilities.

The answer is to train pilots to a level where they know how to fly the aircraft to the manufacturers' limits, but not to fly it beyond them.

Rotorbee

9th Jul 2018, 15:41

I am with aheoe26104. I think I know, which company it is and if this is true, they are neither test pilots nor military trained for such manoeuvres. They are just very high time pilots, who probably have done this kind of flying since the time of the Lama. If they do this all the time, the bean jar for some components empties faster. I have seen AS350 MRB unserviceable, because the ships were left out in the weather without tying the blades down. The constant up and down due to the light wind killed them. The owners were not aware, that this could happen. It is absolutely irrelevant, if Airbus does have maintenance instructions after a flight beyond the normal envelope. Wear and tear will show, that the ship was abused (hopefully early enough). It is also absolutely irrelevant, if Airbus has demonstrated even more extreme manoeuvres, because the test ships will have a much more rigorous maintenance, than production ships and Airbus will not fly the ships for hundreds of hours like that, just to show it can be done.
Probably they will be lucky and nothing happens, if not, the final report will show if the macho flying style was a factor.

GrayHorizonsHeli

9th Jul 2018, 17:11

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

is it an aerobatic manoeuvre? I think the camera angle theory has already been discussed. There's no onboard sensors to indicate angles or gforces.
where is that criteria? Who determines it?

where is Airbus' special inspection for one that enters aerobatic manoeuvres?

[email protected]

9th Jul 2018, 17:13

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFMbut why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out, it is because when an untrained pilot tries it, messes it up and then crashes, the manufacturer would be liable.

Helicopters get abused in for more 'legal' ways than this - being flown constantly at high AUM, VNE, in turbulent conditions, all of which are non-reportable (all within the RFM) and all of which degrade the components quicker than the TBO stated by the manufacturer who will assume a wider spectrum of usage.

Fareastdriver

9th Jul 2018, 18:08

As Boeing Vertol found out. When the BV234 was introduced into commercial operations on the North Sea the confidence in the aircraft was rock solid. Millions of hour in the US Army, Vietnam, all over the world.

Max cruise at max AUW and they were falling apart in six months.

Bell_ringer

9th Jul 2018, 18:58

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out, it is because when an untrained pilot tries it, messes it up and then crashes, the manufacturer would be liable.

Helicopters get abused in for more 'legal' ways than this - being flown constantly at high AUM, VNE, in turbulent conditions, all of which are non-reportable (all within the RFM) and all of which degrade the components quicker than the TBO stated by the manufacturer who will assume a wider spectrum of usage.

If you buy a German car in Africa they remove a number of sportier options from the list because we are in a "rough road" country. The warranties they offer just don't last when treated roughly.
Civilian helicopters are no different.
When something unexpected happens the manufacturers are liable and it's next to impossible to trace the history back to a handful of bored high-hour pilots.
If you want to be chuck Aaron get a sponsorship from redbull.

ShyTorque

9th Jul 2018, 21:22

Helicopters get abused in for more 'legal' ways than this - being flown constantly at high AUM, VNE, in turbulent conditions, all of which are non-reportable (all within the RFM) and all of which degrade the components quicker than the TBO stated by the manufacturer who will assume a wider spectrum of usage.

Exactly. Which is a very good reason not to try to stretch the envelope.

SARWannabe

10th Jul 2018, 07:19

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out, it is because when an untrained pilot tries it, messes it up and then crashes, the manufacturer would be liable.

Errrr because they have to flight test the allowable envelope and go through the whole certification process... Clearly they haven’t tested the longevity of the parts when people mishandle more experimental manoeuvres.

I think you’ve had a bit too much sauce - you normally have a strong and arguable point. The logic that it MAY have been conducted by an experienced pilot and MAY not have over stressed any parts because he may have been trained by the military, and therefore is ok is BS. And I think you know it. We have to operate to the lowest common denominator here, boring as it is, and if they certify it for aero-manoeuvres it would have to be able to wothstand badly handled ones.

There is every likelihood this could have stressed parts beyond their certified limits - without mast-moment & G data recording we’ll never know. If someone were to certify a helicopter for aeros i’d expect them to measure record such values, and add extra maint inspections, so before I take my family it it I can tell whether Oldy Boldy has performed a crab style well perfectly executed Cuban roll, or a chewed up Cuban cigar. You simply cannot reasonably defend that clearly operating outside the approved flight envelope is fine just because you think you can do so in a manner that probably won’t damage it.

AAKEE

10th Jul 2018, 08:24

Quote:
Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

but why? It isn't because the aircraft isn't capable, as FED points out,

That should be easy ro sort out; certification requirements. I’m quite sure that there is no category for other than ”normal” in FAR27. Aerobatic category wount be find there, I guess. I dont know but I guess the FM for large transportation fixed wing aircraft (FAR25) also need to have the ”Aerobatic manouvers prohibited”
For the record, if my memory don’t fail, even the civil standard RFM för Bo105 says aerobatic manouvers prohibited. Thats not a ’capable’ issue but certification.
The military authorithies that did produce a own Flight Manual might have left that part out of the manual.

As said before, the normal regulations doesnt cover aerobatics with standard helos, which means the helo isnt certified and the pilot is not (per definition) trained and capable of such manouvers. That makes it illegal.
Also said before it doesnt need to be unsafe. The aviation authority might/would/have-to say its unsafe if a mil trained Bo105 pilot performs the manouvers he is trained on in a civil Bo105 without the proper approval.

[email protected]

10th Jul 2018, 17:07

I think you’ve had a bit too much sauce - you normally have a strong and arguable point. The logic that it MAY have been conducted by an experienced pilot and MAY not have over stressed any parts because he may have been trained by the military, and therefore is ok is BS. And I think you know it. We have to operate to the lowest common denominator here, boring as it is, and if they certify it for aero-manoeuvres it would have to be able to wothstand badly handled ones. No, just trying to provide a counterpoint to the idea that a wingover is any different from a steep turn, or a crop-spraying return to target or some of the manoeuvres mustering pilots do in far less capable aircraft. A helo manufacturer is never going to jump through the hoops for an aerobatic certification since the target market would be tiny and not worth the cost. It's also much easier to over-engineer a fixed wing for aeros since it is just the structure and not all the rotables that suffer.

I have repeated that I do not condone his actions in this case and I get the whole 'keep inside the RFM limits piece' (it's not rocket science) but too many on here want to hang, draw and quarter the pilot in the video based on one clip and no knowledge of him, the aircraft configuration, the actual G or AoB he reached or, frankly any quantitative information.

nigelh

10th Jul 2018, 21:21

Beautifully back tracked manoeuvre Crab !!!

[email protected]

11th Jul 2018, 05:56

Not really Nige - plenty here are convinced that he overstressed the aircraft which will inevitably cause a failure downstream and that he should have declared the overstress and had the aircraft inspected and grounded himself.

Now, if we had seen a video of the same pilot executing a level, steep turn to get to the cliff, would there have been such outrage?

A sustained 45 degree AoB turn is 1.4G and a 60 degree bank turn is 2G - both well within the RFM but both would do far more damage if poorly flown - there are no limits on rate of application of pitch or AoB in RFMs and that is where the stress is put on the airframe, especially the twisting on the tail boom with the mass of the TR and TRGB on the end of it.

Would the outrage brigade be calling for the same censure of a pilot who regularly uses steep turn for positioning (and possibly some fun)?

Despite the definitions of aerobatic manouevres, we are not talking about rolls, loops, pedal or Tq turns here - just a wingover............

nigelh

11th Jul 2018, 07:10

Crab ... I think you are purposefully missing the point most are making . They are not saying he overstressed the aircraft or that he should have it grounded !!!! You have set your stall out and are not going to back down for anyone . Just ask yourself the question ..... if my daughters new boyfriend came to pick her up on his motorbike and pulled a wheelie all down the drive ...would you
1) Be impressed at his skill and think your daughter would be very safe
2) Think ...what a penis , I don’t want my daughter travelling with him .
And there is the point .... a well executed wheelie is not necessarily dangerous or bad for the bike ......but it is very often both !!!

dClbydalpha

11th Jul 2018, 12:05

nigelh I think some people are still on the path of "stressing" the aircraft looking at recent posts, hence Crab's re-iteration.

There is so little information about this video, so few facts, I would not want to condemn the pilot on what we have in front of us.

The video captured the manouevre from a spectacular point of view. More importantly it seemed to predict exactly where the aircraft would appear and what it would do, without hesitation. Either incredibly fortunate for the camera man ... or they were in on it.

If it was a pre-briefed requested manoeuvre does that make a difference?

If my daughter requested her boyfriend wheelie away so she could film it, then my reaction would be different than if he just did it spontaneously.

aheoe26104

11th Jul 2018, 14:28

OK, OK, I relent.

There is nothing wrong with this manoeuvre and I will from this point on be happy to have my family collected by this gentleman and flying ace and total model of a professional pilot and any other such as him in any aircraft that may have been honoured by similarly gifted God's Gift to Aviation "walk-on Water's" from this day forward.

And also admit that I have been wrong to go off on social media about this matter, , , and be quiet on my son's funeral when he tried something similar as displaying his "superior" flying skills at every possible impromptu opportunity it being so highly regarded by absolute professional and lifelong shining examples to us mere lowly pretender pilots only just struggling to stay alive in this mysterious industry for only 36 years.

I stand to be corrected!

[email protected]

11th Jul 2018, 16:42

Did he have pax on board????? It doesn't look like it since it appears he was going in for a pickup.

Very different if he had had done it with pax on board so the motorbike wheelie analogy is wasted.

This is all about context and if he flew the manoeuvre with only himself in the aircraft and didn't damage or stress the aircraft - what exactly is the issue???????

Bell_ringer

11th Jul 2018, 17:18

Captain Crustacean, you are correct. This is about context.
It's a civilian aircraft under civilian regulations.
The pilot's skill, training and personality is irrelevant as are the laws of physics and design envelope of the squirrel.
What makes anyone capable is not purely their credentials nor history but how they conduct themselves within the framework that they have been authorized.
This is not the military nor a military demo.
He does not need to be hung, drawn nor quartered but he needs a slap on the back of the head for deciding that either his experience or level of boredom means that operational rules become optional.
(With respect for your vast experience and expertise)

[email protected]

11th Jul 2018, 21:37

Campanologist - you might find the modern military take a dim view of what is essentially flying indiscipline too:) I have recently attended a mil-run flight safety course as a refresher and had the Catterick Puma crash dissected at great length including listening to the CVR tape - it makes one's blood run cold.

This guy, at worst, needs a gentle re-education about levels of acceptable behaviour, he may work at a place where this is the norm and they have slipped into a poor culture.

As a reminder, the OP started off with this as a jackstall (servo transparency) issue and much of the outrage was directed at how much damage he had done to the aircraft etc I think we have put that idea to bed now and it is just the choice to fly that manoeuvre that is at question.

eagle 86

12th Jul 2018, 02:10

Reluctant that I am to join this conversation because the same subject pops up every couple of years or so.
Ask yourself this - probably not the first time this clown has done this. What about the times he did it practicing and screwed up?
I was in the military when the AS350 was introduced as an ab initio trainer replacing the UH1B.
So much excitement about the vastly superior rotor system- capable of anything!
Hold it what about all the little bolts that hold the tailboom on?
What about the engine/transmission/hydraulic oil systems?
And the engine fuel system?
The bloke's a goose with no thought for those who would fly the aircraft after him.
Idiot.

Bola1

12th Jul 2018, 08:04

Look up the definition for aerobatic flight in your Regulations and stop being silly about this stunt.. It is not a normal manouvre in any book and it is not legal it is the flight manual So I see no point in defending this at all.

swisshelipilot

12th Jul 2018, 14:44

Rotorbee

13th Jul 2018, 07:07

There's nothing wrong, I see a wide ag turn in a light, pilot only, AS350B3 on a crew pickup. That's probably the least stress on this helicopter during a normal work day in that region. Keep calm and carry on.

So ... you know the guy?
Ag turn? I thought we agreed on wing over?
I am absolutely sure, that this is a normal workday for that pilot. No doubt about it, but the region does not ask for this kind of flying.

[email protected]

13th Jul 2018, 08:58

but the region does not ask for this kind of flying. do you know that for sure or are you just super-imposing your own views - the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying.

76fan

13th Jul 2018, 16:13

Crab quotes:

"I am looking at it from a career of 35 years of military flying that includes a great deal of low flying, fighter evasion, air combat manoeuvring and other similar disciplines so in that context a simple wingover really isn't a big deal.
If all you do is fly straight and level from A to B with pax at a safe height then it probably looks horrendous and seems the most heinous crime to fly such a manoeuvre.
Apart from anything else - it looks like fun - because it is - something that seems to be progressively legislated out of aviation."

and now......"the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying."

No matter how brilliant you try to tell us you were in the military (and I have no idea whether you were or not) it cannot have left you with much time in the civil helicopter world. I would therefore suggest that you are inexperienced in civil aviation and that there is no place for you or your cowboy attitude in commercial professional helicopter operations. The legislation to which you referred is there to try to stop stupid behaviour, and your latest comment ignores the commercial/owner pressure which has often been put on commercial helicopter pilots and which has subsequently led to fatal accidents.

The "right stuff" required in the military is not the same as the "right stuff" needed in commercial aviation.

Now go and willy wave somewhere else. (Sorry, I could only take so much self esteem)

Agile

13th Jul 2018, 18:55

There's nothing wrong, I see a wide ag turn in a light, pilot only, AS350B3 on a crew pickup. That's probably the least stress on this helicopter during a normal work day in that region. Keep calm and carry on.

I would second that, I would believe that the machine would receive much more stress with a fully loaded 500kg bucket on the sling through a little patch of turbulence.
As far as the risk factor I believe the pilot is more likely to become a casualty in another stupid case of inattention, in opposition to that dynamic maneuver were he most likely had his brain wired on.

My point is: the sweet spot for safety is not always doing the utmost conservative flying.

Ascend Charlie

13th Jul 2018, 18:58

the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying.

"Hey, pilot! Can you turn this thing upside down and fly under the Tower Bridge?"

(Pilot thinks..."Hmm. The crew is asking for a Crab Manoeuvre - lucky I spent 35 years just waiting for this to happen...")

whoknows idont

13th Jul 2018, 19:04

No doubt about it, but the region does not ask for this kind of flying.

do you know that for sure or are you just super-imposing your own views - the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying.

Crab, so you would pull off such a show on request by some pax even though you know it's in gross violation of the regulations? :suspect:

dClbydalpha

13th Jul 2018, 20:06

What regulation is it a gross violation of and what about the manouevre particularly causes the transgression?

Previously I'd posted a link to a helicopter wingover I found on the net, amongst many. Was that therefore also a gross violation?

jellycopter

14th Jul 2018, 05:36

Agile, very well said.

DCLalphathingy, I would assume there's an equivalent to the 500ft rule in that part of the world. Wazzing past the pax, as part of your approach wouldn't, in this case, be considered by the 'man on the Clapham Omnibus' to be a normal or required manoeuvre to effect the landing. I think that alone would be considered a flagrant disregard for the regulations.
JJ

[email protected]

14th Jul 2018, 22:01

Goodness me there are some precious people out there who just love to attack anyone offering a different opinion!

Have I flown like that in the military? Yes, and usually for good reason.

Do I fly like that in the civil world? No, for good reason.

Now go and bother someone else with your self-righteous attitudes.

ralphmalph

15th Jul 2018, 16:26

I must admit, other than about 5 hours of Fighter Affil, I haven't found the need to wingover....struggling to think of an occasion other than doing it during General Handling as a way to make things a bit more challenging. In the Lynx it was a matter of pride to execute a 45/45 wingover to the left!..right was easy.

[email protected]

15th Jul 2018, 20:16

45/45 was rather girly:) 45/90 was the standard ISTR, 30/45 was the very basic manoeuvre.

ralphmalph

16th Jul 2018, 04:52

45/45 was rather girly:) 45/90 was the standard ISTR, 30/45 was the very basic manoeuvre.

After fatigue pentaly factors were applied for running landing, wingover etc, it was found that people had been operating the aircraft out of manufacturers guidance for many years.

45/45 was just fine...but had little application for warfighting! Pretty useless in fact.

The fighter affil and Tac form JSP after much development only ever called for 30 degrees AOB and no wingovers. Guess bored QHIs created the requirement.

Thomas coupling

16th Jul 2018, 15:00

Put yourself in the position of the owner of a fleet of these helos trying to run a business and one day you just happen to be out and about with the ground troops for whatever reason. Coincidentally it is one of your cabs that comes to collect you.
Are you going to be saying to the pilot - "Hey big balls, you sure know how to fly one of those - the lads were impressed".
or will you say (after he walks into the office post shut down and out of ear shot from others), sunshine, here's you P45. Go fu*k someone else's aircraft up and frighten their prospective customers - dog breath".

You all know it - if it's your car, your bike, your house - which is treated like that..........it only happens the once!

nigelh

16th Jul 2018, 15:03

well there you have it TC . The “ owner” pays the “ bills” !!!!

GrayHorizonsHeli

16th Jul 2018, 17:28

coulda been the owner himself...just sayin

Thomas coupling

16th Jul 2018, 19:16

Nigel - you stalking me again?

[email protected]

16th Jul 2018, 21:20

After fatigue penalty factors were applied for running landing, wingover etc, it was found that people had been operating the aircraft out of manufacturers guidance for many years. that happened with many military helicopters as their use and hours matured, they were being used for military sortie profiles and not civilian ones and since the manufacturers couldn't have known in advance exactly how the aircraft were going to be used then its not a surprise. The Mil operated them within the Release to Service which the manufacturer had sight of so everything was legal.

Operating outside their guidance and operating outside the RFM (RTS) are not the same thing.

nigelh

16th Jul 2018, 21:59

Crab , you say

that happened with many military helicopters as their use and hours matured, they were being used for military sortie profiles and not civilian ones

then the next moment you are advocating military style manoeuvres as being fine ( if the pilot is capable ...) and maintaining those manoeuvres have no effect on maintenance etc !! Make your mind up !

No TC , rather worryingly I am agreeing with you !

dClbydalpha

17th Jul 2018, 09:36

nigelh, if I read it properly I think Crab is talking about the fact that a military aircraft is designed against an agreed predicted usage spectrum. At various points this spectrum is revisited with the experience of how the airframe is actually being used. It is rarely about "military manouevres" more about the relative percentage of time the airframe spends in particular flight conditions, weights, cycles. Everything in the spectrum should be within the RFM/RTS.

nigelh

17th Jul 2018, 09:55

So what percentage do you think the manufacturer allows for unapproved aerobatic manoeuvres then ?
is it fine if the pilot just does this once a month ? Once a week or every day ? By the time the ship is 30 years old she may have spent a long time almost upside down !!

dClbydalpha

17th Jul 2018, 11:18

What "unapproved aerobatic manouevre"?

If it is within the limits of the RFM / RTS then it's being used within the constraints of the manufacturer. After that it is about determining loads and lifing.

[email protected]

17th Jul 2018, 11:39

C'mon Nige, stop reading things into statements that aren't there - you don't appear to understand military flying and how tactics and techniques constantly evolve to meet or counter the threat from the enemy. Heli vs Heli and Heli vs fighter manoeuvring evolved out of exactly such a situation - something that wouldn't have been considered when the aircraft was designed and manufactured.

Bell_ringer

17th Jul 2018, 12:24

How did the antics of some bored guy in the land of holy cheese end up as a military contest?
He wasn't flying a lynx and definitely wasn't having a dogfight.
It's a common, garden variety French can, the manufacturer thereof is fairly particular about how it should be treated.

It is good to know the military professionals (some of them anyway) can spend as much time inverted/semi/quasi-inverted as they like, though that could really make drinking the hot cuppa a bit more challenging.
Back to beating the dead horse.

dClbydalpha

17th Jul 2018, 12:28

... tactics and techniques constantly evolve to meet or counter the threat from the enemy...

sometimes it is more mundane than that Crab. Helicopters are very versatile and people find different ways of using them. So the fleet may be spending more time hovering than expected, or flying sideways, or may be there are more landings per flying hour. So the numbers get re-crunched.

dClbydalpha

17th Jul 2018, 12:38

The issue for me Bell_ringer is that this thread appeared to be a trial by social media.

While the original video looks spectacular the more I looked the more I found I couldn't interpret the severity of the manouevre due to the point of view. I know nothing of the pilot or the situation under which they choose to perform it. I find it strange therefore that some pilots have leveled severe allegations here on this thread, they can obviously see something I can't.

Bell_ringer

17th Jul 2018, 12:53

dCa, that is what social media is for isn't it?
I think most, if not all, have managed to agree that the actual severity can't be judged from the perspective of a mobile phone video.
The point of view, as I interpret it, is that in the civilian world that style of flying is unnecessary and not representative of good judgement (irrespective of how far along in the 50 shades of flying grey the manoeuvre may actually be).

The military have different.rules for a very different role and what may be perfectly acceptable in that environment could be career limiting in another.
When the elastomeric bearings have to be replaced before their time that may not be a concern for Johnny taxpayer but for the owner of a civilian aircraft trying to eek out as much margin as possible, it will not sit as well.

GrayHorizonsHeli

17th Jul 2018, 13:17

but thats the whole argument right?
whether this manoeuvre actually creates any added stress on the parts like the elastomers is a hard fought debate. Some think total aircraft destruction is imminent. Some think who cares. Others sit on the fence. I can tell you after seeing an EC120 Main and Epi Module with Rotor Head, all decked out in Airbus' stress monitors, I can assure you, they have every single component wired up to gather the data they need to know they have built a component capable of the flight envelope they tested the design at. with a healthy safety margin I imagine.
The frequency adapters and the spherical bearings react on the rotor head the same way no matter the attitude. The gearbox doesn't care if it's flat and level or 45 degrees. The tailrotor and drive is oblivious as to whether its doing a hard pedal turn, or lifting a max gross external load.

dClbydalpha

17th Jul 2018, 13:51

Don't disagree technically Bell_ringer but without any data trace it's hard to say whether any excessive lifing has occurred. Certainly impossible to claim there's been damage. I don't know what was the pilot's motivation so can't even comment on whether it was necessary. We see worse manoeuvres in films and on TV all the time, they're civil but the manouevre is justified for the purpose of entertainment?

[email protected]

17th Jul 2018, 15:31

Bellringer - you would do more damage to the elastomeric bearings by not releasing the collective lock after shutdown - keeps them in a deformed condition.

You would also hammer the bearings much harder with constant high AuM and high speed ops - you need to keep this 'damage' idea in perspective and remember what the aircraft spends 99% of it's life doing (and that is never going to be wingovers).

Bell_ringer

17th Jul 2018, 19:13

Indeed Crab but I was trying to be more metaphorical than literal.
If you've ever had the pleasure of seeing some of the unexpected failings of aircraft operated in modern day Africa then perhaps that would put it into better context.
It isn't up to any of us to decide when it is or isn't appropriate to deviate from the flight manual or standard ops, as none of us are metallurgists, and few are engineers. Can't we all agree that sticking to the same script is a good idea for longevity?

[email protected]

17th Jul 2018, 20:54

But presumably those aircraft in Africa have been operated in accordance with the RFM and haven't been wingovered so I don't clearly see your argument.

If you mean that the aircraft in Africa are being abused and not serviced properly then I understand the 'unexpected failings'.

GrayHorizonsHeli

17th Jul 2018, 21:32

my dealings with African aircraft fall squarely on overloading, and poor maintenance

Bell_ringer

18th Jul 2018, 06:35

When you end up having to replace parts before they are due and owners complain about the manufacturer, no one has a record of every time someone has pushed the aircraft whether it be weight or unnecessary flying (whilst not exceeding the flight manual). While one wingover may not cause noticeable decreases in service times, a culture of doing so will.
There is no way to empirically measure that apart from looking at the maintenance history over a period of time.
Maintenance deviations aren't only a result of exceeding the FM, how an aircraft is used within it's operational limits is a contributing factor.

dClbydalpha

18th Jul 2018, 07:48

...
Maintenance deviations aren't only a result of exceeding the FM, how an aircraft is used within it's operational limits is a contributing factor.

Absolutely true, but there are far more punishing flight conditions than a well executed wingover. They aren't spectacular so don't draw immediate criticism - if it was all about maintenance burden then all need to be monitored.

[email protected]

18th Jul 2018, 08:15

Maintenance deviations aren't only a result of exceeding the FM, how an aircraft is used within it's operational limits is a contributing factor.

So you have a culture of overloading the aircraft and poor maintenance (99% of the use) and you are worried about the odd wingover (less than 1% of the use) even if they did one every sortie - hmmm perspective adjustment required.

Sounds like they all need HUMS and CVFDR installed if you are really worried about early component failure.

Bell_ringer

18th Jul 2018, 08:28

Not talking about overloading. Remaining within the letter of the FM does not mean you will make component times, the manual does not tell you how to operate just sets limits.
Components rarely fail, they just don't last. If you have ever had to maintain your own aircraft you will understand that is an unnecessary expense.
Wingovers are an indication of an overall culture the results of which will have a greater than 1% effect.

Nonetheless the argument from some seems to be that since the aircraft can do aerobatics and test pilots have shown that it can be done safely then it is ok in the bigger picture.
With that logic they also test aircraft well beyond VNE quite safely, so let's also do that from time to time. It is also unlikely to contribute more than 1%.
But why stop there. If you are a good, capable pilot let's just push all the boundaries every now and then.
Eventually all those 1% add up.

[email protected]

18th Jul 2018, 09:26

Wingovers are an indication of an overall culture the results of which will have a greater than 1% effect.I don't think that's a true statement at all - do you have any evidence to support that?

As for extrapolating the wingover argument into exceeding all limitations, that seems a very black and white position to take ie 'If you are going to break one rule you may as well break them all' and not representative of any pilots I have ever flown with.

Bell_ringer

18th Jul 2018, 09:53

I don't think that's a true statement at all - do you have any evidence to support that?

As for extrapolating the wingover argument into exceeding all limitations, that seems a very black and white position to take ie 'If you are going to break one rule you may as well break them all' and not representative of any pilots I have ever flown with.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it is only 1%?
I am referring to a flying culture of which a wingover is but a part.
My last comment was obviously hyperbolic, but if someone is prepared to break one rule, they will certainly be prepared to break another. How many they choose to skirt is academic, comes back again to culture and culture certainly has an effect on safety.
When eventually something goes wrong it will be the cumulative effects of all the little percentages that have unexpectedly added up.

Sikpilot

18th Jul 2018, 11:12

Would any pilot here say something to the pilot flying this aircraft if they had to fly it afterwards? Would you say anything to the maintenance dept? Chief pilot?
If anyone here owned this aircraft, would u keep him on your payroll if you saw this?

[email protected]

18th Jul 2018, 12:55

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that it is only 1%? unless you spend the whole sortie doing wingovers and assuming we are talking about carrying pax from place to place, a wingover is probably only flown on arrival at the LS - given the amount of time the aircraft will spend in transit to earn it's crust, I don't think 1% is unrealistic.

My last comment was obviously hyperbolic, but if someone is prepared to break one rule, they will certainly be prepared to break another. I don't think that is true either, there will be a sliding scale of acceptable behaviour, even in the worst cowboy, and everyone will have their own 'red-lines'.

Bell_ringer

18th Jul 2018, 13:20

there will be a sliding scale of acceptable behaviour, even in the worst cowboy, and everyone will have their own 'red-lines'.

Agreed, but how many rules get broken or how far that scale slides isn't all that important, it's condoning the sliding scale to begin with that's problematic.
It is a slippery slope in an environment that should be black and white. Trying to create grey areas based on ability or by transferring what is acceptable in a different environment to civilian operations isn't going to make anyone safer.

For each person you may choose to defend by saying these manoeuvres can be done without damage while in skilled hands, there are a couple more that are flying beyond their pay grade and taking aircraft beyond their limits.
It is easy to nit-pick over phone videos but it would be a lot better to create a more safety-conscious culture by finding other ways for bored or complacent pilots to entertain themselves.

We can all agree to disagree.

Fantome

18th Jul 2018, 13:56

It is easy to nit-pick over phone videos but it would be a lot better to create a more safety-conscious culture by finding other ways for bored or complacent pilots to entertain themselves.
Bored ??? Complacent??? Sounds like an accident going somewhere to happen.

[email protected]

18th Jul 2018, 15:14

Bored ??? Complacent??? Sounds like an accident going somewhere to happen Sounds like a crew flying a serviceable aircraft, completely within the rules and the RFM, into the sea at Sumburgh and killing several pax - what price ability there?

That did a lot more damage than a wingover - perhaps if they had flown the occasional 'cowboy' manouvre they might have been more on the ball when it really counted.

FC80

18th Jul 2018, 16:21

do you know that for sure or are you just super-imposing your own views - the crews he was working with may well ask for this type of flying.

Well, if some know-nothing grunt you're picking up asks you to fly it like you stole it, you don't have much choice, do you? :hmm:

arketip

18th Jul 2018, 17:58

Well, if some know-nothing grunt

Is that what you usually call your crew?

[email protected]

18th Jul 2018, 18:59

Bell_ringer

18th Jul 2018, 19:12

FC80 - ever worked with Mountain Rescue teams? I have been asked several times in the past to give them an enjoyable ride (RNLI and MCA too) - how far you take that is up to individual discretion (as long as the crew agree that is) it doesn't have to be stunting and bunting, just something other than straight and level.

Is it up to the individual?
Aren't there constraints set by the operator, regulator and manufacturer?
Granted that leaves some leeway, but the boundaries are certainly not defined by the individual nor the crew.
I have read and agreed with many of your posts over the years, this thread seems to have taken a strange departure from the usual trend.

Fantome

18th Jul 2018, 19:27

it doesn't have to be stunting and bunting, just something other than straight and level.

. . . . and anyone qualified to comment who takes exception to that mild rejoiner needs (as was posted on another thread here recently) to "go and get laid and loosen up".

(thinks -- wish someone who knows how would post that scene from the movie Capricorn One where the sinister pair of Hughes 500s slam into the side of a mesa, erupting in huge fireballs.)

treadigraph

18th Jul 2018, 19:39

(thinks -- wish someone who knows how would post that scene from the movie Capricorn One where the sinister pair of Hughes 500s slam into the side of a mesa, erupting in huge fireballs.)

Et voila...

https://youtu.be/fQEGMNLTYPs?t=2m14s

Fantome

18th Jul 2018, 22:03

what a great one-liner from Telly - "PERVERTS!!"

Thomas coupling

18th Jul 2018, 22:28

About the only exciting thing one can do with a seaking and pax is fly sideways to let a breeze into the backdoor!

Crab - you have to let go, now. The mil was then and times have changed.

This forum's about civvy street. You and I both know this cnut flew at or beyond the flight envelope when he didn't need to be anywhere near there - for this particular occasion.
His willie was driving, not his hand!

Let's all move on now shall we, this is getting soooooo boring.

WillyPete

20th Jul 2018, 10:32

This one is guaranteed to get as much negative reaction.
https://youtu.be/g42U18zqr3g

GrayHorizonsHeli

20th Jul 2018, 12:51

Willy....you twatwaffle...this thread was poised to finally breathe its last few breaths....now look what you have done.....

[email protected]

20th Jul 2018, 15:10

This is a on a completely different scale to the opening video, clearly the pilot had done some display flying before since he includes all the classic manoeuvres and had them reasonably well-linked and performed.

However, it is just such an impromptu air display that often ends in tears and I am certainly not countenancing or defending this behaviour.

Bell_ringer

20th Jul 2018, 16:24

It wasn't "Q" was it?
(That should get things going) :E

Thomas coupling

20th Jul 2018, 19:28

WillyPete, I would be more than happy to report this to the CAA if you have any further info on it: Date / venue / reg number?

Complete and utter total neglect for public safety. Busting every conceivable reg available, I would suggest.

Can you provide more info via PM for me please?

toptobottom

20th Jul 2018, 23:12

I would be more than happy to report this to the CAA
‘Billy no mates’ TC sinks to a new all-time low

Pablo332

21st Jul 2018, 13:38

This is someone else’s tool, not your toy.

Here’s your P45, don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out do feel free to ride out into the sunset.

[email protected]

21st Jul 2018, 17:28

Pablo332

21st Jul 2018, 17:40

If you want to hot dog on your own time/dime, fill your boots.

If your taxi driver turned up doing a handbrake turn, would you compliment his skills and get in with the family?

Old Age Pilot

21st Jul 2018, 20:35

If your taxi driver turned up doing a handbrake turn, would you compliment his skills and get in with the family?

:D

Pretty much sums up the crux of this argument

John Eacott

21st Jul 2018, 21:01

Thomas coupling

21st Jul 2018, 22:36

Damn!
Perhaps that's why / how he got away with it then!
Hopefully he's stoofed since then anyway.

nigelh

22nd Jul 2018, 00:05

Pablo .. you are spot on .

Bell_ringer

22nd Jul 2018, 06:27

So, as pilots, are we merely bus drivers to get from A to B as safely as possible, or did we become pilots to develop our handling and professional skills to the point where we can do a bit more than that?

While being responsible for the lives of others the very definition of your role is getting from A to B as safely as possible.
We became pilots BY developing handling and professional skills not to develop them when there is an audience or camera nearby.

Aviation is a structured environment and it is that way because of safety and all the lessons that have been learned. What was acceptable or the norm 20 years ago is not acceptable today. It is all about context.
Impromptu, seat of the pants flying to impress others is dangerous for those in the air and on the ground.
By all means, go fly the socks off it in the right controlled, environment. If it's your aircraft, only your backside in the seat go for broke. If not, then a bit more respect for your pax and aircraft would be in order.

Accidents start between the ears, developing that muscle during each flight would be far more productive.

aheoe26104

22nd Jul 2018, 06:55

While being responsible for the lives of others the very definition of your role is getting from A to B as safely as possible.
We became pilots BY developing handling and professional skills not to develop them when there is an audience or camera nearby.

Aviation is a structured environment and it is that way because of safety and all the lessons that have been learned. What was acceptable or the norm 20 years ago is not acceptable today. It is all about context.
Impromptu, seat of the pants flying to impress others is dangerous for those in the air and on the ground.
By all means, go fly the socks off it in the right controlled, environment. If it's your aircraft, only your backside in the seat go for broke. If not, then a bit more respect for your pax and aircraft would be in order.

Accidents start between the ears, developing that muscle during each flight would be far more productive.

Perfectly put sir...

ShyTorque

16th Aug 2018, 22:29

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nowdonia-wales (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-into-the-accident-involving-a-griffin-mk1-zj241-at-yr-aran-snowdonia-wales)

In the link above (accident inquiry, Snowdonia Griffin) are some highly relevant comments made about the consequences of flying helicopters (Griffin in this case) beyond the RFM limits and what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre.

dClbydalpha

17th Aug 2018, 08:12

... the consequences of flying helicopters (Griffin in this case) beyond the RFM limits ...

Can anyone post the relevant RFM manoeuvre limits for the aircraft type in this thread please.

[email protected]

17th Aug 2018, 08:15

It doesn't define aerobatic manoeuvres - it states what the Bell was designed for (50 deg AoB, 15 deg nose down and 30 deg nose up) and mentions the RAF (not RFM or any civil document) limits of 90 deg nose up and 90 deg AoB).

There is a lot of information about possible contributory causes of the structural failure including the teaching of wingovers (in the RAF syllabus for many years but apparently not picked up by Bell until they were told) and sloping ground landings - specifically the technique of reducing an out of limits slope in one direction by adjusting the heading to make it a compound slope. This has been taught for many years on many types in the military and has never been questioned since you remain inside the limits for nose up and lateral slopes.

Bell decided not to replace the support structure for the MRGB post the wingover revalation - it says this in the report - so they can't have been that bothered by it - perhaps a combination of the stresses of repeated sloping ground landings and repeated wingovers could have been modelled to suggest a different cpourse of action.

In the end, if you land out of limits on a slope (even using compound techniques) and use an inappropriate amount of forward cyclic, you are putting a lot of strain on that support structure which appears to have given way.

dClbydalpha

17th Aug 2018, 08:35

Thanks Crab. Very interesting report to read.
With the previous post talking about unintended consequences of exceeding limits, my question here was more to do with the relevant limits for the AS350 variant in this thread for comparison.

ShyTorque

17th Aug 2018, 09:41

Can anyone post the relevant RFM manoeuvre limits for the aircraft type in this thread please.

That is part of the problem. Most helicopter manufacturers simply state in the RFM that "aerobatic manoeuvres" are prohibited, or not permitted, without actually stating what the numerical AOB/pitch/yaw limits are intended to be.

cattletruck

17th Aug 2018, 10:58

Helicopters are just not bolted together by the manufacturer for acrobatic manoeuvres - and the RFM reflects that. However, I too am guilty of testing that paradigm.

Way back in the free'n'easy days as a student (although I had a FW ticket with some experience on a number of aerobatic types) I was doing some solo circuits in a H300 with a steady 35/40 knot headwind. As you know, the top climbing speed of a H300 is not much more than that headwind component. My first turn to downwind saw me almost end up outside the circuit area. Feeling around the flying envelope my second turn to downwind was was quite steep. My third turn to downwind was at 90 degrees, and my fourth turn to downwind was a deliberate 100 degrees angle-of-bank - I wanted to go a little inverted. All turns were super smooth as was the recovery, however, when I parked the thing I realised the stupidity of my actions - these machines are fragile and this kind of flying just adds to their wear and tear. In the commercial FW world I was told you could lose your job for being an ape with the wheel brakes while taxying, which makes this kind of flying in a helicopter irresponsible. I figured this out early and have since given the machines I operate the respect they deserve.

[email protected]

18th Aug 2018, 09:27

megan

19th Aug 2018, 04:55

Saw a post by Nick Lappos and some Sikorsky engineers on Facebook a couple of weeks ago where they talked of the severe reduction in component times as a result of the necessary manoeuvres made during test flying. Good enough for me to say stick to the book and no showboating. Fatigue monitoring and accounting would protect against the consequences on airframe health of unconventional manoeuvres and control activity and provide a check for greater than usual fatigue life consumption.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940008821.pdf

Unlike fixed wing, military at least, we don't have fatigue counters. Most helicopter manufacturers simply state in the RFM that "aerobatic manoeuvres" are prohibited, or not permitted, without actually stating what the numerical AOB/pitch/yaw limits are intended to be. Aerobatic flight is defined in the particular certifying authorities regs. FAA where a lot of our machinery originates, § 91.303 Aerobatic flight.No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=48135f7b500227b0896c0a3bae41467a&term_occur=1&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:D:9 1.303);(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.[LEFT]For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

FARSec. 91.307

Parachutes and parachuting.

[(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger--
(1) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(2) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.]

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with Part 105 of this chapter.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with Sec. 61.67 of this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means--
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number..

[email protected]

19th Aug 2018, 06:34

But none of that actually defines aerobatic flight an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. is so wishy-washy - perhaps deliberately so - and the section on parachuting isn't relevant, it just mentions attitude and AoB and then gives exceptions for flying training - why would you bury a theoretically wide-ranging and important limit, deep in a section about parachuting?

cattletruck

19th Aug 2018, 09:23

So, as a FW pilot with some aerobatic experience, you would have known that a level 45 deg AoB turn is 1.4g and a 60 deg AoB turn is 2g - with your 'super-smooth' roll in and roll out of the turns, how did you generate the extra power/lift on a 90 deg AoB turn - let alone the impossible task of doing that at 100 deg AoB?

But that's just it, those typical steep turn G's were never encountered turning onto base, the thing just kept sending itself downwind no matter what AOB I chose early on.

megan

20th Aug 2018, 01:53

why would you bury a theoretically wide-ranging and important limit, deep in a section about parachuting Crab, Who knows how the minds of bureaucrats work, don't know about yours, but our regs are equally vague. The Oz CAR definitions.acrobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.

CAR 155 Acrobatic flight
(1) A pilot in command of an aircraft must not do any of the following:
(a) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight at night;
(b) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight that is not in V.M.C.;
(c) fly the aircraft in a particular kind of acrobatic flight if the certificate of airworthiness, or the flight manual, for the aircraft does not specify that the aircraft may perform that kind of acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units