Training on grass

[falcon920]

I remember reading an article on the dangers of conducting autorotation training or run-on landings on grass. I’ve tried to search the archive along with the web browser and can’t seem to find it. Anybody by chance know where it can be found.

[Nigel Osborn]

Autos onto grass are far more gentle on the skids. With wheels it doesn't matter as long as the grass is flat with no pot holes, same as for runways.

[aa777888]

It's not about being gentle with the carbides on the skids, it's about surviving training intact. Touchdown auto's are safer when done to pavement, it is far more forgiving of mistakes. On grass all it takes is a little left or right yaw on touchdown and an errant bit of turf to turn it into a rollover. But don't take my word for it, this question is easily researched on Google. Tim Tucker is as good an authority as you are likely to get, see his article here (https://www.timtuckershelicopterworld.com/my-take-on-autorotations), scroll down to the Grass vs. Hard Surface discussion.

[Gordy]

I remember reading an article on the dangers of conducting autorotation training or run-on landings on grass. I’ve tried to search the archive along with the web browser and can’t seem to find it. Anybody by chance know where it can be found.
Shawn Coyle did an article in 2005 on the very subject.

[industry insider]

I did all my training on grass, no problem. I don't agree that touchdown autos are necessarily always safer on pavement.

[paco]

Pavement doesn't have gopher holes

[212man]

"Training on grass" - I though this was going to be a whole different topic.......:}

Interesting article linked to above by the guy with lots of numbers in his name. I was actually very encouraged to see his advocacy for transmitting a 'Mayday' call ( not meant to provoke an "aviate, navigate, communicate" debate....) as this call seems to be something of an anathema to our US colleagues, in both big and small 'tin', who prefer to say they are "declaring an emergency" (typically when prompted by ATC). Pity he then went on to say the following:Transmit “mayday, mayday, mayday” over the radio (in some parts of the world it’s “pan, pan, pan")

a) "pan' and 'mayday' are different levels of severity of problem, and b) in the civil world it's "pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan". "pan, pan, pan" is, or certainly was, used by military crews - probably because in the FJ world there's better things to do with the time when things are going bad.

[malabo]

Done both grass and pavement, both as student and instructor, everything from R22 to 412. Each has their risk, pavement is more uniform and predictable, but you have to ignore that horrible screeching noise. Lots of variables, as usual for the helicopter world, one size doesn’t fit all. I like flat smooth hard grass cropped short.

[aa777888]

"Training on grass" - I though this was going to be a whole different topic.......:}

Interesting article linked to above by the guy with lots of numbers in his name. I was actually very encouraged to see his advocacy for transmitting a 'Mayday' call ( not meant to provoke an "aviate, navigate, communicate" debate....) as this call seems to be something of an anathema to our US colleagues, in both big and small 'tin', who prefer to say they are "declaring an emergency" (typically when prompted by ATC).
I'm not so sure that's true in the helicopter community in the US. I've heard two ATC audio recordings where the Mayday call was made. Both in the NYC area. One was back in 2013, a 206 engine out over the boat basin, popped floats and all was well. I can't seem to find that recording online at the moment. The other is the infamous shoe-selfie debacle, Youtube link posted below.

With the urgency associated with an auto from 1000ft AGL or less, I know I'm going to pop the M-word if I think of it and am talking to ATC at the time. But you are correct in that most fixed wing incidents do tend toward the "declaring an emergency" style of communicating. I also agree it is too bad, surprising even, that Tucker should confuse Mayday and Pan calls. As a mariner I've heard and made many Securite calls, heard many Pan calls, never heard an actual Mayday. As an aviator I have yet to hear my first live emergency, thank goodness!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53vhyEXXtyg

[meleagertoo]

Touchdown auto's are safer when done to pavement, it is far more forgiving of mistakes. On grass all it takes is a little left or right yaw on touchdown and an errant bit of turf to turn it into a rollover.
What cobblers!
AFAIK no British service or civil helo training ever uses anything else but grass for touchdown auto's(sic). More advanced types with wheels are twins and don't do touchdown autos at all.

There is simply no concept in UK that grass is hazardous - it's all we use and it simply does not cause problems or else we wouldn't do it. The thought of doing an auto to a hard runway makes me cringe with horror at the thought of all that metal being ground away, even if they are sacrificial pads. Why do it???

In any case when you auto for real there ain't gonna be a nice concrete patch to land on so the ability to touch down straight and feather the aircraft onto the ground smoothly is an esential skill that you won't learn if all you learn is to plonk it on the concrete with drift on and dump the lever as you grind your way along half-sideways in a bonfire of expensive sparks...

However we are well aware that with t/r failures high speed run-ons are to be done on runways if at all possible. In a normal auto youalways have the ability (skill permitting...) to land straight if you choose to, in a t/r failure you likely do not.

It seems the objection to grass is a cultural rather than a realistic or practical concept.

[Bell_ringer]

You can slide sideways-ish on tar. Doesn’t work so well on grass.
It’s great if you can keep the pointy bits facing forward, if there is any lateral movement there is no substitute for smooth asphalt.

[Hughes500]

Probably done over 5000 EOL's to grass with no problem what so ever so really no idea what you are talking about in being dangerous

[Flying Bull]

Well,
it all depends….
If you do autos to a well known gras area - you ˋll be fine most of the times.
Had to do a OEI landing and went for gras - as always trained until then - and dug in quite a bit, cause it was on a non familiar airfield…
Had to do another OEI landing and went for the taxiway close to the hangar instead of the runway, thinking about blocking the runway with the skid equipped helicopter and the tow distance
Well the taxiway was not only smal, it also had a slight slope, so the helicopter drifted towards the adjacent gras.
Remembered the role over of the police helicopter in Hannover, which drifted onto the gras and put the collective a little faster down then initially intended, creating a nice curved skid mark on the tarmac.
Two times moving from the luck bag into the experience bag - which I use much more often by now ;-)

[Robbiee]

Hmm,...as a city and/or desert pilot I've always been meaning to ask,...

What's grass?

[Sir Korsky]

agree with Hughes. Also done many hundreds of EOLs to both surfaces and never had a problem with either. I remember doing my FAA CFI to a grass surface with the FAA DPE watching from a distance, as they did in the old days.

[megan]

We were trained to do a 35 knot auto for IMC (Huey) with the hope you'd see the ground in time to pull pitch to arrest the descent and figuring running into something at that speed more than likely would be survivable. Used to practice them to touchdown on grass during the daytime, the only problem was maybe a bit of pylon rock on rough grass at low RPM.

Only ever did one auto to touchdown in a twin (76), instructor wouldn't put the throttles up in the flare if he thought things looked good, only once per pilot as a confidence builder, thought it mighty brave of him.

[wrench1]

From my side of things, I used to hate when it was time for the old AS350D recurrent training time with the D models below the nose mounted pitot tube and low skid gear. Seemed every week some anointed stick wiggler would either stick the tail skid in the mud or snag the nearest fire ant mound with the pitot tube during the full auto quals. Job security for sure but was happy when high gear and windshield level pitot arrived on the scene.

[hoistop]

We have got significant damage on a 206 during auto training on grass. When landed, the aft part of BOTH skids dipped in a sort of potholes, that were left behind by agricultural machinery-tractor, that dug two holes in a distance, exactly matching skids distance. (obviously made by tractor wheels that dug into softened soil during last rain) Potholes were perfectly hidden in grass. When collective was lowered, heli tilted backwards resulting in abrupt stick-forward reaction. A severe mast-bumping followed so mast, M/R Hub, XMSN mounts etc. had to be replaced. You never know what is hiding in the grass as long as it is not verified every time.
As a glider pilot, I was taught never to try out-of-airport landing on the grass, however temptating, if a plowed field is available too. This came with decades of experience. (and many damaged planes)

[Hughes500]

well anyone who wants to do EOL's to a runway is welcome to show me how it is done at my home airfield here in UK EGTU. The runway built in 1943 is still there and used loads of times daily by our fixed wing brethren. By the way bring your own machine because you aint using any of mine

[the coyote]

I personally think the risk of EOL training to pavements (or airport grass even) is they are so forgiving, if the aircraft is not straight with forward speed at touchdown. This is obviously a good thing for initial training. But it is common to see on Youtube considerable run on speeds for EOL landings as the norm, and what is taught.

If you can't do a zero speed touchdown auto, without cutting the tail off, or have never been trained to do so, then you will almost certainly roll it over on an unprepared surface for real, with bad results for survivability. Try running it onto a beach, or the water, or the forest. Helicopters are built to survive significant vertical impacts but not being rolled over, even at slow speed.

Training is only helpful if it can be put into successful practice if the time comes, and such safe forgiving landing environments are rarely available. Think about the most common environment you fly over day in day out and make sure you are trained to survive landing in that if need be.

[[email protected]]

Is this just an example of dumbing down training? If you can't do an EOL/full down auto to a grass surface because you can't keep it straight for the touchdown, you shouldn't be allowed out in a helicopter on your own.

[ShyTorque]

We have got significant damage on a 206 during auto training on grass. When landed, the aft part of BOTH skids dipped in a sort of potholes, that were left behind by agricultural machinery-tractor, that dug two holes in a distance, exactly matching skids distance. (obviously made by tractor wheels that dug into softened soil during last rain) Potholes were perfectly hidden in grass. When collective was lowered, heli tilted backwards resulting in abrupt stick-forward reaction. A severe mast-bumping followed so mast, M/R Hub, XMSN mounts etc. had to be replaced. You never know what is hiding in the grass as long as it is not verified every time.

As a glider pilot, I was taught never to try out-of-airport landing on the grass, however temptating, if a plowed field is available too. This came with decades of experience. (and many damaged planes)

Which just goes to show that in aviation there is seldom a "one size fits all" answer. I would not let my Bulldog students even practice forced landings to a ploughed field (in case the engine didn't pick up). Experience had showed that the type (low wing, nose wheel, SEP with a sliding canopy) was quite likely to nose over on a soft surface and if it did, there was no chance of getting out unaided. Getting burned alive by leaking AVGAS whilst hanging upside down certainly wasn't how I wanted to end my days.

Different types, such as a high wing with side doors (Cessna 152 etc), maybe.

[cattletruck]

I could never land an R22 from auto without making at least a 10ft skid on grass, perhaps others better than me could do better but I was more focussed on developing a consistent technique with less risk. H300, B206 and A350 are easy enough to land with little to no forward skidding.

But what's the big deal, we practice TR failures touching down at faster speeds than an auto using the throttle/airspeed/wind to control where the nose is pointing just before touchdown, collective to gently brake, and cyclic to control nose direction when on the ground.

I once recall watching a lifestyle TV show where unexpectedly Nick Lappos turns up and performs an auto in a JetRanger onto a taxiway - he skidded for miles (maybe I'm exaggerating a little) but the grating sound coming from the skids was just awful.

[megan]

We have got significant damage on a 206 during auto training on grass. When landed, the aft part of BOTH skids dipped in a sort of potholes, that were left behind by agricultural machinery-tractor, that dug two holes in a distance, exactly matching skids distance. (obviously made by tractor wheels that dug into softened soil during last rain) Potholes were perfectly hidden in grass. When collective was lowered, heli tilted backwards resulting in abrupt stick-forward reaction. A severe mast-bumping followed so mast, M/R Hub, XMSN mounts etc. had to be replaced. You never know what is hiding in the grass as long as it is not verified every time.The lesson there is survey the ground you are training on before you put it to the test.

[aa777888]

Is this just an example of dumbing down training? If you can't do an EOL/full down auto to a grass surface because you can't keep it straight for the touchdown, you shouldn't be allowed out in a helicopter on your own.
That may not be the best way to look at this issue. If you can demonstrate the ability to land at a reasonable forward speed with the skids pointed in the right direction, why not practice and demonstrate that skill on the safest, most forgiving surface possible? There is nothing gained by demonstrating it to grass. I suppose one could argue that it adds the pressure to get it right! But perhaps simply demonstrating the skill to the FAA (or EASA or whatever) practical test standard ought to be sufficient.

That said, in the US there is a lot of risk/reward management going on within the civil (not military) training system when it comes to auto's. With most training being done in Robinsons, full-downs are not required to be taught or demonstrated on a private or commercial check-ride. The training accident to real accident ratio was, so I'm told, becoming quite poor, and since most machines being bent or balled in a "real" auto were not resulting in a lot of fatalities, the juice just didn't seem worth the squeeze. Perhaps more interestingly, recently the full-down became optional on the CFI check-ride because too many FAA DPEs were not current enough in Robinsons to save a CFI check-ride candidate's bacon, and their own. One has to show up with a full-down endorsement from their instructor though. As usual, some of this gets fixed by the insurance underwriters who require pilots to go to Bell school, or Airbus school, or some sort of additional training.

P.S. scary noises and the smell of burning carbide are not good reasons to not practice to hard surfaces.

[[email protected]]

If you can demonstrate the ability to land at a reasonable forward speed with the skids pointed in the right direction, why not practice and demonstrate that skill on the safest, most forgiving surface possible? There is nothing gained by demonstrating it to grass. Grass is a safe and forgiving surface and is at least a better representation of what you might have to deal with in the real case.

If you let people only demonstrate their skill on a surface which lets you get away with sloppy heading control you are ticking a training box rather than keeping up to a standard (sadly something all too common nowadays).

The fact that instructors and inspectors struggle is exactly what I mean by dumbing down training.

The widespread use of Robinsons and their lack of suitability as a training machine (due to number of accidents) has driven down training standards in the industry as a whole - well done Frank!

[Robbiee]

The widespread use of Robinsons and their lack of suitability as a training machine (due to number of accidents) has driven down training standards in the industry as a whole - well done Frank!

Having done full downs in an R22, then seeing how much RIDICULOUSLY easier they are in anything I've been in that's even slightly bigger, I have to say There really is no reason to do full down autos at all.. If you can't do a successful full down auto in a big bad "real" helicopter after just practicing power recovery autos and hover autos, then damn dude,...?! :bored:

[[email protected]]

You should try EOLs in a Gazelle, a Squirrel or a Jetbox - all much, much easier than an R22 and much more fun - you can actually explore variable flare, variable check and variable cushion in comfort.

[ShyTorque]

The Whirlwind was even better when it came to variety.....range autos at 80kts and 180 RRPM....you could see the blades going round.

RAF students on the basic course were required to do a solo engine offs sortie. I don’t recall ever hearing about a solo student pranging one. All to grass.

[[email protected]]

Sounds like the extended range EOL on a Gazelle - droop the Nr back from 380 to 330 at 90 kts, it certainly made a difference, you just had to remember to recover the Nr before the EOL itself.

[sycamore]

Crab /Shy...you should have tried Gazelle on skis at 1900kg onto snow/ice ,in manual...
Anyway,the WW was excellent ,even at 170 RRPM...Here`s one I prepared earlier,and maybe a familiar `face` for some of you `older chaps/ses...Cab was repaired in a month or so...
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1243x1608/tinkershill020002_1643__696328e73a5b5af406eeda96080c6e39d1a2 b67f.jpg
be careful landing on sand

[ShyTorque]

Sounds like the extended range EOL on a Gazelle - droop the Nr back from 380 to 330 at 90 kts, it certainly made a difference, you just had to remember to recover the Nr before the EOL itself.

Having done both, I recall the Whirly as more "interesting"; the aircraft really "wobbled" its way along in the range auto configuration; I remember it seeming to rock from side to side but then it went noticeably further. Yes, the RRPM definitely had to be recovered (to a heady 230, iirc) before the final landing.

After my B2 - B1 check ride on the Gazelle, my CFS examiner (Dennis H) told me that now that I should always remember never to trust a student because any of them would be capable of trying to kill me! He recalled his time as a newly qualified instructor on the Whirlwind and how he got into the habit of feeling for the collective towards the final part of EOLs being flown by his students (didn't we all?).
However, on one memorable occasion he thought that things weren't going quite right early on during the autorotation. He felt for the collective and couldn't find it! He then looked down and saw that it was almost fully raised and his hand was well below it; he was feeling thin air. Meanwhile the RRPM had reduced to very little and was still going down. The aircraft went in, out of control, from a hundred feet or so. Thankfully in a Whirlwind there was a lot of aircraft to act as a crumple zone below the pilots' backsides and they both survived. Never forgot that sage advice...almost forty years ago now. :cool:

[ShyTorque]

Crab /Shy...you should have tried Gazelle on skis at 1900kg onto snow/ice ,in manual...
Anyway,the WW was excellent ,even at 170 RRPM...Here`s one I prepared earlier,and maybe a familiar `face` for some of you `older chaps/ses...Cab was repaired in a month or so...


Sycamore - how do you get a Gazelle into "manual"? There's no fuel computer.....

There was a memorable set of skid marks at Ternhill during the winter of 1984-85 (I was instructing on 1 Sqn). We had just reached the EOL teaching stage of the Gazelle Course when there was a heavy snow fall, followed by rain then which then froze solid, leaving a hard crust and powder snow below. I was sent to check out the "EOL Triangle" area at Ternhill (large grass area between the cross runways 28 and 22). It wasn't safe because there was no contrast on the totally smooth snow so it would have been very difficult to estimate height for the flare. I suggested that ATC might drive their Land Rover around to generate some ruts....they did so and it was game on.

A couple of days later, we were all amazed to see a very impressive set of skid tracks which began at the southern end of the triangle, carry on completely northbound across its full length, up over the tarmac runway 22, over onto the northern grass, up over the tarmac perimeter track, across more grass outside that and finally stop on the upward sloping ground area just by the trees on the northern airfield boundary. This was a distance of nearly half a mile!!

I did find out who was involved...(he said they both nearly soiled their pants because they thought it would never stop) but no names mentioned :E

[aa777888]

Grass is a safe and forgiving surfaceThis is not a factually true statement. No matter how perfect the grass surface is it presents a greater chance of a rollover compared to pavement.

and is at least a better representation of what you might have to deal with in the real case.No argument there. But, still a gas/petrol station parking lot, or roadway, or any number of other examples are probably better representations. How much risk do you want to bite off on in training? You are one of the most risk adverse people I know (on the internet).

If you let people only demonstrate their skill on a surface which lets you get away with sloppy heading control you are ticking a training box rather than keeping up to a standard (sadly something all too common nowadays).Only if you let them get away with it. You seem to be implying that all instructors, or perhaps even most instructors, will become lazy and will not grade the student appropriately. That has not been the case in my admittedly limited experience.

The fact that instructors and inspectors struggle is exactly what I mean by dumbing down training.I've not observed any instructors struggling. I have observed a single DPE who struggled. But this is more of a Robinson issue than a dumbing-down issue.

The widespread use of Robinsons and their lack of suitability as a training machine (due to number of accidents) has driven down training standards in the industry as a whole - well done Frank!Look on the bright side. As Robbie alluded to, there really is some truth to the aphorism "If you can fly a Robinson you can fly anything." When I was over in your neck of the woods a few years ago and made it a point to get a couple of hours in the G2, on the first auto I literally started to giggle. It was so ridiculously easy! And slow. With piles of energy in that rotor in all phases of the auto. So I do appreciate the differences even through just that one example.

Bash the machine all you want. It's made rotary wing flight, personal and business, possible for many thousands of people. In the US the helicopter industry would be horribly maimed if they should all suddenly go away. I, personally, would not be flying helicopters if Robinson did not exist. It's a risk/reward tradeoff I'm willing to make, and I invest a lot of time, energy and money making sure I get the best training possible in order to manage the limitations of the machine.

[timprice]

We use to have a student we nick named the cresta run for obvious reasons, when it came round to the annual test we use to get a different examiner in to let them have a surprise!
We reckon once definitely covered over 100yards, oh what fun!:)

[[email protected]]

aa777888 - grass is a perfectly safe surface for EOLs - even a runway will roll you over if you get the technique wrong.

The British Military have conducted hundreds of thousands of EOLs to grass over 50 plus years and the number of accidents has been miniscule.

I, like others, used to train instructors which included sending them solo (with a stick buddy on the same course) that made for some interesting rides because not only did they have to fly their own EOLs but they had to correct errors I made to simulate student cock-ups.

All this done on grass and if you saw what we allowed the students to do and how close to the edge we needed to get them to build their confidence, you would not regard me as risk-averse. It's a different sort of risk to winching on a mountainside in the dark, wind and rain but a risk all the same.

recently the full-down became optional on the CFI check-ride because too many FAA DPEs were not current enough in Robinsons to save a CFI check-ride candidate's bacon, and their own Sounds like people are struggling to me. If the accident ratio was as high as you suggest - where does the fault lie? Is it the unsuitability of the aircraft for the task, the ability of instructors and examiners to monitor and correct student errors, or a combination of both? Either way the teaching and standards are being diluted.

[sycamore]

Crab/Shy, I spent several winters in Canada doing icing trials,WX,S-K,Wasp and Gaz. Part of the Gaz.trials was flying around in `manual`,hyds -off`,b`cos thats what the engineers wanted as part of the clearance..I had spinach every day,arms pumped like Arnies,and chewed the ends off my pipes...Hurling curling stones,or `ten-pin balls` was not a problem,and the fem/male ratio in Ottawa was 7/1 at the time.......!

Nobody remember `Langers` in the photos...?

[aa777888]

aa777888 - grass is a perfectly safe surface for EOLsI guess you and I will disagree, then. I'll stick with the recommendations of my instructors and the likes of Tim Tucker, Shawn Coyle, and others. It's a clearly divisive issue though, as this topic shows with ample numbers of posters coming down (hah, a pun!) on both sides of the question.

Sounds like people are struggling to me. If the accident ratio was as high as you suggest - where does the fault lie? Is it the unsuitability of the aircraft for the task, the ability of instructors and examiners to monitor and correct student errors, or a combination of both? Either way the teaching and standards are being diluted.I think it's important to put a finer point on it than that. What I wrote was "recently the full-down became optional on the CFI check-ride because too many FAA DPEs were not current enough in Robinsons to save a CFI check-ride candidate's bacon, and their own". The only person struggling in this context is the DPE, not the student or their instructors. I suppose that DPEs, by their very nature being highly accomplished aviators and educators, probably spend most of their non-DPE time in more sophisticated machinery than an R22 or an R44. The DPE can require the student to perform a full-down if they like. I suspect that most who are recent in Robinson equipment do, in fact, go that route. But with helicopter DPEs being in somewhat short supply, this was the FAA's solution to a safety issue vs. DPE availability issue, and the CFI candidate in question MUST show up fully qualified in full downs with an instructor endorsement to that effect.

[Robbiee]

Sounds like people are struggling to me. If the accident ratio was as high as you suggest - where does the fault lie? Is it the unsuitability of the aircraft for the task, the ability of instructors and examiners to monitor and correct student errors, or a combination of both? Either way the teaching and standards are being diluted.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the 22, but I have noticed a "dumbing down" of the emergency procedures in the POH in these past handful of years. I'm guessing that perhaps our insistence in having fresh off the assembly line pilots make all our new pilots is catching up to us?

[ShyTorque]

Crab/Shy, I spent several winters in Canada doing icing trials,WX,S-K,Wasp and Gaz. Part of the Gaz.trials was flying around in `manual`,hyds -off`,b`cos thats what the engineers wanted as part of the clearance..I had spinach every day,arms pumped like Arnies,and chewed the ends off my pipes...Hurling curling stones,or `ten-pin balls` was not a problem,and the fem/male ratio in Ottawa was 7/1 at the time.......!

Nobody remember `Langers` in the photos...?

I thought you meant manual engine control..... :p

I would have recognised Dick L but unfortunately the photos aren't clear enough on my screen to see faces in detail.

[ShyTorque]

AA777888 I guess you and I will disagree, then. I'll stick with the recommendations of my instructors and the likes of Tim Tucker, Shawn Coyle, and others. It's a clearly divisive issue though, as this topic shows with ample numbers of posters coming down (hah, a pun!) on both sides of the question.

For many years, the British Armed Forces have not (deliberately) conducted EOLs onto anything other than grass, for both wheeled and skidded helicopters. Engine off areas (at RAFs Shawbury, Ternhill, Chetwynd, Middle Wallop etc) were all grass. FYI, both Crab and myself were RAF QHIs, btw. I first did my solo EOLs as a basic student in a Whirlwind 10 onto grass in 1979.

[sycamore]

Shy, Dick is front left; he ,and others on board were `offering advice` on the way to the F/L in colouful language...a very fine guy...

[meleagertoo]

Having done full downs in an R22, then seeing how much RIDICULOUSLY easier they are in anything I've been in that's even slightly bigger, I have to say There really is no reason to do full down autos at all.. If you can't do a successful full down auto in a big bad "real" helicopter after just practicing power recovery autos and hover autos, then damn dude,...?! :bored:

The mind simply boggles...

[ShyTorque]

Shy, Dick is front left; he ,and others on board were `offering advice` on the way to the F/L in colouful language...a very fine guy...

Yes, I understand that many didn't get on well with him but he was very encouraging to me on my first tour; he did my first night check on 230 when he was Puma Standards. He made me land in a field without any lights other than the position lights of an aircraft already in there, in very hazy conditions (that crew had just mistakenly collected up the NATO T; we were supposed to be doing that after we'd done with it - send three and fourpence etc).

[ericferret]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/815x447/scout_nell_17dfb64881ef2c94fa56ba9318c1da0dae4f8041.jpg
Autos on to grass, two for the price of one.

[megan]

Aaahh, the Scout, about the most testing thing there is in which to do autos, but the funnest thing to fly. I don't know what the aversion is to doing autos on grass, what are the inherent dangers? Our military skid helos unit only ever did them to grass and not one issue ever arose that I'm aware of, though we did have a Wessex do a night auto to a runway and put the tail wheel up through the tail cone, night autos were promptly banned.

[aa777888]

I don't know what the aversion is to doing autos on grass, what are the inherent dangers?
Did you read this topic from the top?

[MENELAUS]

Aaahh, the Scout, about the most testing thing there is in which to do autos, but the funnest thing to fly. I don't know what the aversion is to doing autos on grass, what are the inherent dangers? Our military skid helos unit only ever did them to grass and not one issue ever arose that I'm aware of, though we did have a Wessex do a night auto to a runway and put the tail wheel up through the tail cone, night autos were promptly banned.


I’d take issue with that having done autos and EOL’s on both. The Wasp was marginally worse. Heavier for one thing, the flot gear interfered with induced flow, so it came down like the proverbial brick outhouse. And then the skewed in gear, in land mode, which caused snaking on landing. It behoved one to ensure the wheel locks were out prior to the first one.
At least one a season came back from Merryfield on the back of a Queen Mary having been “top hatted”.
Finally I seem to recall doing engine offs to both the grass and the tarmac at Culdrose in the Gazelle back in the day. Much to the chagrin of the maintainers.
Still got my dayglo ‘frange’ !!!
Two of the trappers did a SK double engine out at Predannack, and, bounced on the tail wheel on landing, and pitched forward damaging the aerials at the front. So minor bending of the cab. Naturally, because it was the trappers, and two of them together at that, beggar all was done about it.

[[email protected]]

Naturally, because it was the trappers, and two of them together at that, beggar all was done about it. It was generally acknowledged amongst the senior QHIs that two A2s flying together had far more potential for 'interesting' flights:)

[MENELAUS]

It was generally acknowledged amongst the senior QHIs that two A2s flying together had far more potential for 'interesting' flights:)

Even more so with an A1 combined with an A2. One being OCNFSF (RW) whilst he was at it. Allegedly.

[MENELAUS]

It was generally acknowledged amongst the senior QHIs that two A2s flying together had far more potential for 'interesting' flights:)


Or you could be paired up with “Spitoon” (may he RIP) as your stick buddy. Kerrist. Not sure how I’m still here. !!

[megan]

Did you read this topic from the top?Sure did, most of the helos weight, at least the ones I've flown with skids, have the weight concentrated on the rear of the skids, landing in soft ground and shutting down you would find the stinger resting on the ground. I doubt very much a UH-1 would roll over as said in the article, but I've only got 7,600 on skids so have much to learn, the majority of that was on the Huey. Can you point to any accident report where a Huey ended up on its side after doing an auto to grass due to mishandling?

[[email protected]]

Or you could be paired up with “Spitoon” (may he RIP) as your stick buddy. Kerrist. Not sure how I’m still here. !! He was the Boss when I went through my QHI course - yes, something of a legend

[HissingSyd]

The Wasp was marginally worse. Heavier for one thing, the flot gear interfered with induced flow, so it came down like the proverbial brick outhouse. And then the skewed in gear, in land mode, which caused snaking on landing. It behoved one to ensure the wheel locks were out prior to the first one. At least one a season came back from Merryfield on the back of a Queen Mary having been “top hatted”.

My first EOLs were in the Whirlwind 7 in 1971, to grass, and were so gentle that you did not expect a run-on. It was said that if you missed the spot you could take off and air taxi to the correct place before running up the engine. ;-)

The contrast to the Wasp was stark. Those annual trips to Merryfield were fun, but perhaps not for the beefers, who could not really hide their terror of what we everyday pilots might do. It was no good flaring at the height of all your practice autos, or you would find yourself hanging in the air like Wile E Coyote and with a similar result. With the wheels pinned fore and aft and no brakes, any significant forward speed could see you 100m down the runway before coming to a halt. No grass for this exercise.

[Gordy]

Can you point to any accident report where a Huey ended up on its side after doing an auto to grass due to mishandling?

Not a Huey no, but I suspect this thread was aimed at initial training. I offer some pictures-----ALL these occured in a one year period doing autos to grass.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x960/31a_016_a4e0f067cf3fe76b6d8fbc9225d416b4e106aeca.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x675/431_3_59ea1cb8a7d5b7b21087d32e349b6f73361ebcc9.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/dscn0002_ea256958446200113d32337c80a17debf2c1d8de.jpg

[ShyTorque]

I suspect the type of surface had little to do with those accidents.

[Robbiee]

You know I've been thinking. In my area I'm far more likely to have a forced landing end up wet than on this mythical substance you all call...grass? So anyway, what is the consensus on jumping in an old Mariner and practicing full downs to the water? Worth the risk? Not worth the risk?

I'd love to give it a try myself, but strangely enough none of the schools here have ever had Mariners. :(

[megan]

So anyway, what is the consensus on jumping in an old Mariner and practicing full downs to the water? Worth the risk? Not worth the risk?Don't see why not, video of an R-44 doing just that. Not familiar with the Mariners but we used to do autos to water in our fixed float Hueys, different, big jet of water would squirt out ahead of you from the channel formed by the two skids on the bottom of each float, but no big deal. Shutting down and starting up on the water was part of the deal. One of our lads rescued the crew from a Wessex that crashed in the open ocean by landing on the sea and dragging the survivors aboard, two unfortunately went down with the aircraft, main transmission had spat a gear wheel out the side of the casing and removed one of the jacks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_anQ8cFeFLA

Gordy, Photo 1 and 3 look as though they had no choice and the areas not surveyed for the purpose of practicing autos, the second the result of a flare problem and nothing to do with grass.

Is it true, or just bar talk, that you Brits used to do autos in the Whirlwind not using any collective at the bottom, by running it on on the rear wheels in the flare?

[ericferret]

[QUOTE=ShyTorque;11043376]Sycamore - how do you get a Gazelle into "manual"? There's no fuel computer.....

According to the flight manual Section 3 Emergency Procedures.

"Move the fuel flow control lever (rearwards) to obtain 43000 rpm and continue in level flight,if possible at a constant pitch."

Pitch changes require further throttle adjustment and the requirement is to land in autorotation.
Alarm warning light will be on.

Having had a look at the flight manual, training notes and the engine manual I am at a loss as to how the governor is actually isolated from the fuel circuit.
Looks to be a mechanical action caused by retarding the throttle, but I can't work it out.

If anyone has a solution I would be pleased to see it.

[Gordy]

I investigated all three of the accidents.

I suspect the type of surface had little to do with those accidents.
It actually did, the first two touched front of the skids first and because the "toes" dug in, there was no way for the skids to spread and slide.

Gordy, Photo 1 and 3 look as though they had no choice and the areas not surveyed for the purpose of practicing autos, the second the result of a flare problem and nothing to do with grass.


#2 was at the airport between two taxiways and was a known training area as evidenced by the skid marks. #1 & # 3 were in Area "A", a known training area that was used daily.

#1 was a new instructor who was demonstrating having too much forward trim and allowing the helicopter to run onto the ground with forward motion...:ugh:

# 2 was a checkride for CFI demonstrating a touch down auto. The examiner had a rather large stomach and the student left it too late to flare and thereby attempted an aggressive flare but ran out of cyclic as it hit the instructors belly....they hit the ground fast and the skids "dug in"...

# 3 Actually the third was a "flare" problem in that the instructor was not authorized to conduct touchdown autos and he did a "power recovery" to a hover auto and bounced forward pulling full aft cyclic---had he been to a hard surface, there is a good chance the skids would have spread a little and then skidded not compressed and then sprung up.

So yes, I believe, (and again just MY opinion), that all three of these would have had different outcomes had they have been made to a hard surface. Full TD autos can be conducted to grass safely but not all pilots possess the skills to do so.

[aa777888]

Thank you, Gordy! :)

If grass is all you have then grass is all you have. But there's no reason to be going to grass if you have a choice. A little wear on the carbides isn't going to break anyone's bank. The old ways worked, but sometimes the new ways are an improvement. Just so long as your instructor or check pilot isn't letting you get away with improper technique, of course.

[Robbiee]

# 2 was a checkride for CFI demonstrating a touch down auto. The examiner had a rather large stomach and the student left it too late to flare and thereby attempted an aggressive flare but ran out of cyclic as it hit the instructors belly....they hit the ground fast and the skids "dug in"...

.

This one is my favorite! :E

[Gordy]

Thank you, Gordy! :)

If grass is all you have then grass is all you have. But there's no reason to be going to grass if you have a choice. A little wear on the carbides isn't going to break anyone's bank. The old ways worked, but sometimes the new ways are an improvement. Just so long as your instructor or check pilot isn't letting you get away with improper technique, of course.

Don't get me wrong---I am definitely on the side of hard surface vs grass.....:)

This one is my favorite! :E
Yep, unfortunately he has since passed on. This was a case of the student had learned "rote muscle movement" and did not fully comprehend the situation and adjust his technique.

The one in Pic A, had less than 25 hours on the airframe since new.........:ugh:

These were the 3 airframes I showed Shawn Coyle when he visited back in 2005 right before he wrote his article on Touchdowns to hard surfaces.

[EvaDestruction]

If all the touchdowns are zero ground run, it makes no difference.

In the training environment, how many zero ground run autos are achieved? Very damn few unless they are all done into a 20 knot headwind.

[aa777888]

I have a copy of Shawn's "Little Book of Autorotations" :) There's a whole section on this subject.

[Hughes500]

Hm, got home after loads of touchdown auto's to grass. Haven't bent anything. Grass is much more forgiving to land on then a hard surface. As a comparison if I asked you to jump off a 10 ft wall would you wish to land on grass or a concrete surface ?

[Gordy]

. As a comparison if I asked you to jump off a 10 ft wall would you wish to land on grass or a concrete surface ?

Bad analogy---your knees are designed to bend to absorb the impact with your feet firmly in one spot---skids are designed to spread which they may not be able to do if they dig into the grass.

And yes, I too have done 100's of autos to grass, but accept that the risk is greater than to a hard surface.

[megan]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with grass providing you have surveyed it prior to use to determine its suitability, we are talking training here, not when you've had a failure and few options. All our training was to grass and never had an issue in my seven years of military service, as said previously we used to even run on at 35 knots, no problem, because the surface was maintained. Fixed wing come to grief when landing on surfaces not suitable as well, even when they think it is - runway under repair, did you get the notam.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x771/disaster2005_c130_5__7b01b1cedd84dd7fc0dded922deba7c6969e2f8 e.gif

Gordy, the grass in your #1 and #2 photos would not have passed muster here as suitable for training, don't blame the grass, blame the standards of which you are willing to accept as suitable. Our system ensured a surface flat as a billiard table and the grass kept mown short.

[Robbiee]

,...Our system ensured a surface flat as a billiard table and the grass kept mown short.

Gee,..how realistic.

[Gordy]

Gordy, the grass in your #1 and #2 photos would not have passed muster here as suitable for training, don't blame the grass, blame the standards of which you are willing to accept as suitable.
I did not approve the grass...Like I said, I investigated the accidents and reported my findings.... I was not Chief Instructor or the person who approved training areas, hence I reported that the accidents "could possibly" have been prevented had the maneuvers been conducted to a hard surface..... That much is true .

[[email protected]]

Full TD autos can be conducted to grass safely but not all pilots possess the skills to do so. So we are back to dumbing down training...........

[[email protected]]

Our system ensured a surface flat as a billiard table and the grass kept mown short.I don't think anyone would describe the EOL areas at Ternhill, Shawbury, Middle Wallop and Culdrose like that (Brit Mil training areas) - and as for North Field at Netheravon with its downhill slope.....

[[email protected]]

#1 was a new instructor who was demonstrating having too much forward trim and allowing the helicopter to run onto the ground with forward motion...https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/eusa_wall.gif

# 2 was a checkride for CFI demonstrating a touch down auto. The examiner had a rather large stomach and the student left it too late to flare and thereby attempted an aggressive flare but ran out of cyclic as it hit the instructors belly....they hit the ground fast and the skids "dug in"...

# 3 Actually the third was a "flare" problem in that the instructor was not authorized to conduct touchdown autos and he did a "power recovery" to a hover auto and bounced forward pulling full aft cyclic---had he been to a hard surface, there is a good chance the skids would have spread a little and then skidded not compressed and then sprung up.
#1 - a very convincing demonstration by the instructor - too convincing
#2 - did he pass his CFI ride?
#3 - not authorised for touchdown autos and couldn't even get a power recovery right!

All three instructor errors and rather confirming a dilution of quality and ability in the instructor cadre......

[Gordy]

#1 - a very convincing demonstration by the instructor - too convincing
#2 - did he pass his CFI ride?
#3 - not authorised for touchdown autos and couldn't even get a power recovery right!

All three instructor errors and rather confirming a dilution of quality and ability in the instructor cadre......
Like I said....I was not Chief Instructor...I just reported my findings and conclusions.

#1...Ironic huh....he was part of the MTP---Military Training Program, yep---former military pilots now in the civvie world teaching new military pilots...

#2... Nope he failed, was retrained and retested and I believe he passed on 2nd attempt

#3 See #1 above....I was the one who removed #3's authorization prior to this accident. He was subsequently 609'd (license revoked by the FAA and had to retest to get it back, which he never did).

[Hughes500]

Gordy not a bad one really as the grass and ground absorbs some of the shock as the aircraft touches down, hence you see indents in the ground. You can't seriously lell me that landing on a hard surface has less of a shock to the aircraft ? Of course the skids splay out as this is the first " crumple zone " the manufacturer puts in to protect us. The skids still start to splay on grass, you just dont get the harder shock especially when a student gets it wrong and one has to recover it

[aa777888]

Gordy not a bad one really as the grass and ground absorbs some of the shock as the aircraft touches down, hence you see indents in the ground. You can't seriously lell me that landing on a hard surface has less of a shock to the aircraft ? Of course the skids splay out as this is the first " crumple zone " the manufacturer puts in to protect us. The skids still start to splay on grass, you just dont get the harder shock especially when a student gets it wrong and one has to recover it
I'm afraid you are totally missing the point, H500. It's not the vertical loads that are of concern. It is the horizontal component of the touchdown velocity that is of much greater importance. If there is any forward motion at touchdown and either a) the skids are not perfectly aligned and/or b) the turf is not perfectly smooth, this could result in a dynamic rollover. On pavement (asphalt, tarmac, whatever you call it in your neck of the woods) you can pretty much get away with murder since the surface is very smooth and level, with a coefficient of friction far below that of even a putting green. Sure, the grinding sounds are horrible. While those sounds, and the smell of burning carbide or metal, can be concerning, the reality is that the ability to slide safely is much, much greater than on grass. It is that which is important, not the vertical component.

Also, it's worth nothing that from a vertical perspective, it's not really that the grass is absorbing impact so much as that the grass surface is providing a different character to the ground effect as you touch down. Leaving aside any differences in ground effect from soft surfaces vs. hard surfaces, given the same vertical speed at impact a soft surface will keep the skids from spaying more so than on pavement, and this will transmit a higher shock load to the airframe.

The bottom line is that hard surfaces are safer. Period. Dot. Physics and all that sort of thing. Now if you want to argue that the additional safety margin afforded by hard surfaces is inconsequential certainly you are free to do so. But as Gordy has noted, there are far more touchdown auto related accidents on soft surfaces than on hard surfaces, regardless of how many you and others have survived unscathed. If you have hard surfaces available to you why would you not avail yourself of them to gain that extra margin of safety? Your instructor should be beating you about the head and shoulders for too much forward velocity, or vertical velocity, at touchdown regardless of what surface you have chosen. So choose the one with a more homogenous surface and a lower coefficient of friction, i.e. a hard surface, just in case things go a little sideways.

[Robbiee]

Get your heads out of the bubble wrap and just practice crashing to the type of surface on which you are most likely to crash. :hmm:

[megan]

Like these folk Robbiee? ;) Chose the runway rather than the grass, as if they had a choice, wonder what the result may have been if they came down on the grass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr7hAJmq5Pg

[[email protected]]

Also, it's worth nothing that from a vertical perspective, it's not really that the grass is absorbing impact so much as that the grass surface is not allowing the bubble of air underneath the helicopter to escape so readily. So it's an air cushion effect rather than a surface cushion effect. Indeed, leaving aside the air cushion, given the same vertical speed at impact a soft surface will keep the skids from spaying more so than on pavement, and this will transmit a higher shock load to the airframe. You may have some valid arguments about using tarmac instead of grass aa777888, but that one is complete fiction. search back for Nick Lappos' destruction of the 'bubble of air' theory of ground effect.

Keep straight, don't chase the attitude with cyclic and don't lower the lever until you have stopped during the run on and it doesn't matter what surface or pretty much what speed you land on.

[meleagertoo]

Full TD autos can be conducted to grass safely but not all pilots possess the skills to do so.
So we are back to dumbing down training...........

I am reassured to be reminded that the UK must posess one of the most skilful sets of helo pilots worldwide as every single one, civvy PPL and military, do all their EOLs to grass with no awareness that it was considered remarkable. (afaik)
You are, after all, practicing for emergency landngs in fields...

[Hughes500]

Think you might find on a Schweizer / Hughes the oleos compress way before the skids start to splay any significant amount along with the cross beams ! Granted way different on machines with no oleos

[aa777888]

You may have some valid arguments about using tarmac instead of grass aa777888, but that one is complete fiction. search back for Nick Lappos' destruction of the 'bubble of air' theory of ground effect.Oops, my bad! I did the search you recommended. I am embarrassed to realize that the casual terminology of the "b" word had such a negative history here. I will go back and edit my post to refer to ground effect instead.

Keep straight, don't chase the attitude with cyclic and don't lower the lever until you have stopped during the run on and it doesn't matter what surface or pretty much what speed you land on.That's all quite wonderful, until a student doesn't do that, and his 200 hour super-pilot CFI doesn't sort it out in time.

It's cheap insurance to go to a hard surface no matter how good you are. Just like it's cheap insurance to take an instructor or check pilot with you when practicing auto's. It never hurts to have an extra set of experienced brains in the cockpit under those circumstances.

[aa777888]

Like these folk Robbiee? ;) Chose the runway rather than the grass, as if they had a choice, wonder what the result may have been if they came down on the grass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr7hAJmq5Pg
That's not a good example. The R22 had every right to be where they were, and the FAA found the Cherokee pilot to be at fault. And they were not practicing auto's at the time.

[Evil Twin]

My word is this thread still gathering posts? My Dad's bigger than your Dad!

[Gordy]

I am reassured to be reminded that the UK must posess one of the most skilful sets of helo pilots worldwide
Thanx for the laugh.... It must be because of the "flying gloves & big watches" huh.....?

[Gordy]

Gordy not a bad one really as the grass and ground absorbs some of the shock as the aircraft touches down, hence you see indents in the ground. You can't seriously lell me that landing on a hard surface has less of a shock to the aircraft ? Of course the skids splay out as this is the first " crumple zone " the manufacturer puts in to protect us. The skids still start to splay on grass, you just dont get the harder shock especially when a student gets it wrong and one has to recover it
Tell me how this would play out on grass:
https://youtu.be/MvMcsJTOYI0

[Torquetalk]

Tell me how this would play out on grass:
https://youtu.be/MvMcsJTOYI0

Badly. Bounce back into the air to start. Then a second very short flight.

Misjudged one full down badly, getting in the lee wind behind of a line of buildings. Fell through and hit flat and hard, but no damage. I was in no doubt that had it been grass, I wouldn‘t have got away with it. Grass is great as long as you don‘t hit hard.

[Robbiee]

Like these folk Robbiee? ;) Chose the runway rather than the grass, as if they had a choice, wonder what the result may have been if they came down on the grass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr7hAJmq5Pg

Well, I don't quite get your beef here, but I couldn't give a rats ass about grass vs. concrete. I just don't see any point to practicing crashing to a surface you almost never see below you.

,...oh, and did you read the comment on that video made by the R22 pilot?

[[email protected]]

I am reassured to be reminded that the UK must posess one of the most skilful sets of helo pilots worldwide as every single one, civvy PPL and military, do all their EOLs to grass with no awareness that it was considered remarkable. (AFAIK)
You are, after all, practicing for emergency landngs in fields... Perhaps the concern is that rather than keep standards high, it is seen better to make things easier...............

That's all quite wonderful, until a student doesn't do that, and his 200 hour super-pilot CFI doesn't sort it out in time. And there is the other big issue - at 200 hours you have barely learned to fly a helicopter let alone teach other people to do so - this is justified by the need to hours-build to have a career progression.

Then because of the number of inevitable accidents caused by combining a helicopter unsuitable for basic training with instructors with little experience and ability, the insurance costs go up and people stop doing EOLS/full down autos. Dumbing down training because people 'have the right' to fly a helicopter.

[Robbiee]

Perhaps the concern is that rather than keep standards high, it is seen better to make things easier...............

And there is the other big issue - at 200 hours you have barely learned to fly a helicopter let alone teach other people to do so - this is justified by the need to hours-build to have a career progression.

Then because of the number of inevitable accidents caused by combining a helicopter unsuitable for basic training with instructors with little experience and ability, the insurance costs go up and people stop doing EOLS/full down autos. Dumbing down training because people 'have the right' to fly a helicopter.

Well, if you are referring to the R22, it is in no way unsuitable for basic training. I did my basic training in it and have no regrets. Not to mention having climbed into a Schweizer just after finishing my PPL I was even happier that I didn't have to learn in one of those! They are too slow, too sluggish, and just murder on my back!,...plus the possibility of them shaking themselves apart while still on the ground scared the **** out of me.

As for our insistence on using 200 wonders to teach, I'm right with you on it being utterly ridiculous and one of the more idiotic things we do in this country. However, II' pretty sure its not the addition of Robby to the training environment that started this trend of having newbies teach newbies.

,...and if you want to do full downs in a 22 you can do full downs in a 22. You just have to find the right school. However, I noticed that combining the skills learned in power recovery autos with hover autoes is just as good.

[ShyTorque]

I wouldn’t want to be taught by a 200 hour instructor. When I was sent, much against my better judgement some thirty seven years ago, to RAF Central Flying School to learn how to be a QHI I had just short of 1500 hours, most of it on twin engined helicopters. I really didn’t want to go that early in my career because I considered myself short on experience and the “Old Guard” had many times that many hours.

As I previously mentioned, every EOL we did was to grass. The one significant EOL accident I do remember was a borrowed RAF Puma....at Boscombe Down, by a test pilot.. and to a tarmac runway....oops.

Maybe he’d forgotten his big watch that day. ;)

[500e]

Mostly done autos to grass with Hughes500, expect I scared the crap out of him most of the time but never bent it. Another other thing an auto without the engine running at all is subtly different to one on idle

[ShyTorque]

Mostly done autos to grass with Hughes500, expect I scared the crap out of him most of the time but never bent it. Another other thing an auto without the engine running at all is subtly different to one on idle

I think that’s type specific... ;)

[[email protected]]

Robbiee - I know you will defend your machine to the death but I was type rated on the R22 many years ago and flew EOLs in it - compared to many other aircraft it is unsuitable for training, especially with inexperienced instructors.

The aircraft was never designed or envisaged as a trainer and only became so ubiquitous due to its relatively low costs.

[aa777888]

The R22 is a fine training machine, except for practicing auto's, where it provides probably the smallest safety margins of any machine I can think of. I never enjoyed auto's in the 22. They are more fun in the 44, but I use the word "fun" somewhat loosely.

But...

This is much like the grass vs. pavement argument. If all you've ever had is grass to practice on, and you didn't experience any significant issues in doing so, then you are going to be happy with grass, or at least accepting of the risk it presents. The same is true for training in the R22. If it's all you've got access to, monetarily or otherwise, this definitely has an affect on your risk-related decision making. I would much rather have trained in, say, a 407. And be flying one today for everything I do. Alas, my choices are fly what I can afford monetarily, or don't fly. Everyone already knows how that decision will sort itself out!

[Robbiee]

Robbiee - I know you will defend your machine to the death but I was type rated on the R22 many years ago and flew EOLs in it - compared to many other aircraft it is unsuitable for training, especially with inexperienced instructors.

The aircraft was never designed or envisaged as a trainer and only became so ubiquitous due to its relatively low costs.

I fail to see what makes the 22 unsuitable for training. What,...because it doesn't reward sloppy technique like some of the fatter machines?

I've done full down autos in the 22, 44, and Enstrom as well as power recovery in the 300 and 206, I've also flown a 500 and S-55, so its not like the 22 is the only thing I've ever been exposed to. The little guy may not have been designed as a trainer, but it handles the job just as good as the others,...and I'm not going to fault the machine because of our ridiculously stupid first job program.

[Bell_ringer]

With insurance rates soaring on 22’s I reckon Frank hopes the cadet gets more traction.
The running costs aren’t much more, it can accommodate more American-sized pilots and is just safer than the 22.
Some forgiveness is required in training environments. A smaller, less tolerant and less-crashworthy aircraft like the 22 doesn’t help.

While underpowered, the Cabri’s design is orders of magnitude safer than a 22.
For that premium you may as well also consider a cadet.

[Robbiee]

With insurance rates soaring on 22’s I reckon Frank hopes the cadet gets more traction.
The running costs aren’t much more, it can accommodate more American-sized pilots and is just safer than the 22.
Some forgiveness is required in training environments. A smaller, less tolerant and less-crashworthy aircraft like the 22 doesn’t help.

While underpowered, the Cabri’s design is orders of magnitude safer than a 22.
For that premium you may as well also consider a cadet.

Well ridiculously high insurance rates are what clipped my self-fly-hire wings. Plus, given the "dumbing down" changes I've seen in the POH these past handful of years, I kinda wonder if Frank (or Kurt more likely) has been losing faith in the quality of flight instruction these days.

However, between 2003 and 2019 (my active rental years with four different schools) we only had three accidents. Two in the R22 (a bird strike and rear ending by an airplane on a night xc). Both pilots walked away from the resulting crash. The third was a fatal crash involving training in the R44.

During my training we had one accident. My instructor had a roll over in a 22 after his ppl student dumped the collective after a gust of wind. Not only did both of them walk away, but they were both back in the air within a week.

Its hard to imagine that any of these accidents would have ended differently had they been in a different helicopter.

[[email protected]]

Its hard to imagine that any of these accidents would have ended differently had they been in a different helicopter. Maybe true but the insurers don't seem to see it that way.

[SASless]

Every time I look at a 22....I eat another couple of double cheeseburgers and extra large helping of Fries (Chips to our British fellows).....so as to ensure I cannot fit through the entry door and thus not be able to get into one of the things even if I were to lose my mind and decide to give it go.

[Robbiee]

You know, there's a video on reddit showing a 300 shaking itself apart. Its the dammedest thing,...I mean its just sitting there for the longest time, until it suddenly starts to shake!

I'm sure someone will figure out a way to blame that on the R22. :hmm:

[SASless]

You say you have flown an S-55....they were prone to do as did the 300....and a number of other aircraft....which has nothing to do with a Robby.

Your point is....what?

[Robbiee]

You say you have flown an S-55....they were prone to do as did the 300....and a number of other aircraft....which has nothing to do with a Robby.

Your point is....what?

Its called sarcasm. :rolleyes:

[MLH]

In the event of a real emergency autorotation and given the choice between grass and hard surface with all other factors equal, I'm going for the more predictable hard surface every time.

[ShyTorque]

Too many potholes in U.K. roads to risk that.... ;)

[[email protected]]

In the event of a real emergency autorotation and given the choice between grass and hard surface with all other factors equal, I'm going for the more predictable hard surface every time. That assumes there is a road available, it is orientated into wind (or pretty close) and isn't full of traffic and doesn't have wires or other hazards. If you have to try and land across a road you severely limit your run on space and margin for error in your auto.

Imagine pulling off an awesome EOL only to be rear-ended by an 18-wheeler!

[Robbiee]

,..with all other factors equal,

The grass on the left has kids playing soccer. The hard surface on the right has kids playing hockey. Pick one?

[meleagertoo]

99% of the world's hard surface is unprepared. The landable bits of it are mostly gravel, sand or - grass!
1% is tarmac, concrete or buildings and most of that is heavily infested with wires, poles and - people!

If you're going to have an eol then the numbers say it is vastly more likely that it will be over countryside, so surely the sensible surface to train on is - countryside. = grass, not tarmac or concrete!

Having trained, as all my countrymen do (and all those in all the countries around me do) on grass I find it really quite amusing that there are people who consider it somehow odd or hazardous. Do they really suppose they are the only ones to have noticed this? (despite never doing it themselves?) I have a vast admiration and respect for the USA but their parochialism and sometimes utterly inflexible belief in their automatic superiority can be extraordinarily odd. And irrational.

[ShyTorque]

Its fortunate that tarmac and concrete were invented before helicopters. ;)

[Robbiee]

99% of the world's hard surface is unprepared. The landable bits of it are mostly gravel, sand or - grass!
1% is tarmac, concrete or buildings and most of that is heavily infested with wires, poles and - people!

If you're going to have an eol then the numbers say it is vastly more likely that it will be over countryside, so surely the sensible surface to train on is - countryside. = grass, not tarmac or concrete!
.

That 1% sure does take up a lot of what I see below me.

Now, I'd be more than happy to do some practice crashing to grass. Thing is my only choices for "countryside" are either wild brush on the surrounding hillsides which (even if I could find a flat enough area) would most likely catch fire from my 22's exposed engine, or the wetland areas which (although nice and flat) would most likely envelope at least half of my aircraft as I sink into them.

There is a golf course near by though, maybe they'll let me practice to that? :}

[ShyTorque]

Why bother to even autorotate? :}

[aa777888]

99% of the world's hard surface is unprepared. The landable bits of it are mostly gravel, sand or - grass!
1% is tarmac, concrete or buildings and most of that is heavily infested with wires, poles and - people!

If you're going to have an eol then the numbers say it is vastly more likely that it will be over countryside, so surely the sensible surface to train on is - countryside. = grass, not tarmac or concrete!

Having trained, as all my countrymen do (and all those in all the countries around me do) on grass I find it really quite amusing that there are people who consider it somehow odd or hazardous. Do they really suppose they are the only ones to have noticed this? (despite never doing it themselves?) I have a vast admiration and respect for the USA but their parochialism and sometimes utterly inflexible belief in their automatic superiority can be extraordinarily odd. And irrational.
How is practicing to grass more beneficial than practicing to pavement? The EOL is either good or bad, regardless of the surface. If it is bad, or marginal, one might prefer the more forgiving surface. During training the type of surface should not be the motivation one needs to do a good job. It should be the instructor or check pilot sign-off that is the motivation. How is this philosophy indicative of superiority or irrational?

[[email protected]]

A huge part of flying training is building confidence in your student so they begin to believe they can actually perform whatever manoeuvre you are teaching them.

As the student progresses, you can increase the difficulty incrementally so that confidence continues to grow.

I can see how an easier surface - tarmac - might be OK for early training but building the confidence to make EOLs to grass is important too.

In the Brit Mil we were very lucky to have keen, able, well motivated and generally confident students - something you might not see so much in a civilian student. Hence all our EOLs were conducted to grass.

I believe training to grass is a far better preparation for what you might be faced with in the real world and the ability to reduce groundspeed to a minimum is more likely to lead to a successful outcome if you end up having to do an EOL onto a less forgiving surface.

[Hughes500]

Should we not put this discussion out to grass now !!!!

[Robbiee]

So now this ridiculousness is going from which is safer to which makes you better? I don't think I can roll my eyes any quicker! :rolleyes:

[Hedge36]

See? GRASS EATS HELICOPTERS.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1778x569/a86cc0cc_6e22_4421_8120_9f3ed23d10c8_aca5602300f4db24889c257 9883b9e0f262f3610_9d87cd3e8748c2fd5ab4d817e1979ff5b7a90609.j peg

:)

[aa777888]

I believe training to grass is a far better preparation for what you might be faced with in the real world and the ability to reduce groundspeed to a minimum is more likely to lead to a successful outcome if you end up having to do an EOL onto a less forgiving surface.I realize the proverbial horse is probably beaten only a few atoms thick at this point, but...how does training to grass promote proper groundspeed at touchdown? Is that not the job of the instructor or check pilot to pass/fail the pilot on groundspeed at touchdown? Because you don't want the surface handing out any failing grades!

I've found the ability to hit my spot to FAA commercial standards (+/-50ft) to be very confidence inspiring. But I don't practice EOLs to the local pub parking lot (although if it were for real that might come in handy :E).

[Robbiee]

Looks like maybe this guy had been reading this thread, got confused and decided to try putting one skid on grass one on pavement.

https://youtu.be/n2ktJ4TA8io

[Hedge36]

He started on pavement. As you can see, as soon as he got to the grass the day was done.

[SASless]

My Army EOL training used both pavement and unpaved landing areas....but the standard was the same....one skid length ground slide maximum to receive a passing grade on the maneuver.

Later on in the final stages of our training we did have contests on who could slide the furtherest which made for some good fun and some soiled undies!

But then we did lots...lots....lots. and lots of EOL's and simulated tail rotor failures along with the more mundane things as we were all headed off to where we would get to do them for real with some frequency.

So...pick your poison....asphalt or sod....just avoid the mud and big rocks.

Out in No Where Texas we also had to look out for the Rattlesnakes.

[[email protected]]

how does training to grass promote proper groundspeed at touchdown? If the required standard is as short a run on as possible then it doesn't but if tarmac inclines people to accept faster run ons because it is more forgiving then it does.

[aa777888]

My Army EOL training used both pavement and unpaved landing areas....but the standard was the same....one skid length ground slide maximum to receive a passing grade on the maneuver.
Exactly! The surface should not matter from a grading standpoint.

Indeed, training this standard to pavement is not only safer, but represents a greater challenge to the student because the lower coefficient of friction on pavement means you actually have to have a lower groundspeed at touchdown.

[[email protected]]

Indeed, training this standard to pavement is not only safer, but represents a greater challenge to the student because the lower coefficient of friction on pavement means you actually have to have a lower groundspeed at touchdown. And is that in fact the standard set for training in the US (not military)?

[aa777888]

And is that in fact the standard set for training in the US (not military)?
That's a non sequitur, it is not relevant to the discussion. And you know the answer already, because you know the FAA does not require full-downs at the private and commercial checkrides. So surface type is almost moot in the US unless actually practicing full-downs. I say "almost" because there is the possibility of an "accidental full-down". I know this because I have to admit to having an "accidental full-down" once when I was late rolling on. I am happy to report it was on asphalt and that ground slide was less than a skid length :}

However, learning experience for me: I just looked at the FAA CFI-H checkride PTS and there is absolutely no performance standards other than to properly perform the maneuver! I was surprised! But this does not mean that I support the use of grass or other challenging surfaces to motivate proper airmanship. That should be the province of the instructor.

In thinking about this even more critically, there must be some value in practicing on grass in order to see what it feels like to slide on it. But the question is whether that juice is worth the squeeze in a civilian environment. In a military environment where money is effectively unlimited for replacement of balled up helicopters, there is no cost of insurance, no danger of civil lawsuits, and training helicopters with much greater margins of performance, an assumption of the greater risk probably makes good sense. But in a civilian environment the costs to the training environment compared to the costs incurred by actual EOL emergencies don't justify the return on investment. And this is why the FAA training requirements appear to be so weak, but are actually saving lives and equipment overall. I.e. the total number of fatalities and accidents per year associated with EOLs was higher because there were too many happening in training. With the "relaxed" standards people seem to be crashing and dying at the same rate after training, and a lot fewer during training, so a net improvement.

P.S. I edited this because my original last few sentences were not clear enough.

[Robbiee]

You know it just occurred to me, the last time I did hover autos was to a grass area in between the ramp and runway down in Torrance while attending the Robby class about a year and a half ago. Can't believe I forgot that. I feel so cultured now!

[Gordy]

You know it just occurred to me, the last time I did hover autos was to a grass area in between the ramp and runway down in Torrance while attending the Robby class about a year and a half ago. Can't believe I forgot that. I feel so cultured now!
Ahhh, but was it green grass or it will not count to the "auto gods".....:):):cool::\

[SASless]

Try doing them to a Rice Paddy....when they are all nice pretty and green...and full of water and knee deep mud!

Run On's are not recommended!

[megan]

Best auto seen was a fully loaded Charlie model Huey, had a failure at about 200' and put it down on a rice paddy dyke, sitting on its belly with the skids overhanging the dyke and not touching ground. Don't think he even scratched the paint work.

[SASless]

Are you suggesting it was a "belly landing" with skid gear up?

[MLH]

The grass on the left has kids playing soccer. The hard surface on the right has kids playing hockey. Pick one?

Right between the two with a zero GS touchdown.

[[email protected]]

With the "relaxed" standards people seem to be crashing and dying at the same rate after training, and a lot fewer during training, so a net improvement. That could be interpreted as a failure since improved training should lead to fewer crashes and fatals after training:E

[aa777888]

Right between the two with a zero GS touchdown.
Don't forget the pedal turn into a reverse flare at the end because, you know, points for style and all that sort of thing ;)

[SASless]

Crab.....dear boy....shame on you!

Your memory must be deteriorating as you age.

Helicopter Pilots are a rather dull bunch....as they keep on killing themselves in tried and proven methods no matter how much training they get.

For sure...they are not innovative at all as rarely is it a new and unique thing they do to cause their own demise.

[Robbiee]

Right between the two with a zero GS touchdown.

Ah,...smash the parents. Good choice. :ok:

[MLH]

Ah,...smash the parents. Good choice. :ok:

Preoccupied with their mobile devices, they wouldn't know what hit them.