Engine offs to the ground

[cyclic flare]

I have been flying helicopters for almost ten years, instructing part time for 3 - 4 years but still not comfortable carrying out EOL's to the ground. I will only go to the ground if there is a 15 knot plus wind and dont actually shut the throttle intill i level the ship 6 - 8ft.

I believe the EOL's to the ground should be demonstrated regulary but suspect alot of instructors don't carry out this exercise due to obvious reasons.

How many of you do / dont carry out this exercise.

By the way i fly R22 / R44

[MamboBaas]

EOL = Engine Off Landing i.e. to the ground. If it's not to the ground it's not an EOL.
:cool:

[Ikey Solomon]

I've been flying 22's and 44's out of Booker for the last 3 years and both training schools actively encourage them to the ground. My personal view is that I think it is imperative in all weather conditions to practice these as much as possible. It's a pity that to many schools train to a power recovery and not to the ground out of the fear factor.

[handyandyuk]

All the time I was training and SFH from Cambridge I did practice engine failures, with power recovery above 500' agl and practice forced landings/ EOL to the ground. Once in autorotation the most important part to learn and practice is within the last 100' or so before landing, so unless it is taught AND practiced regularly to the ground, how could any pilot really be considered fully current?
This would have to be more important for us SFH/private types who might get in the cockpit less than twice a month.

And if anyone wants the practice, see Liam at Cambridge... he loves them
:D

[KENNYR]

Its like any other aspect of flying.....practice makes perfect (or close to it). I was a QHI in the Army and nearly every flight ended in an EOL. I practiced and taught them from every conceivable altitude, speed and configuration. It is extremely important to build a student or experienced pilots confidence by allowing them to practice the ultimate emergency.

The only EOL that I did not, under any circumstances, practice was the EOL at night. I did however teach the technique, but during day-light hours only.

I found the most difficulty with EOLs onto snow covered ground or static water.

[idle stop]

CF:
An EOL, distinct from an autorotation, is a JAR Syllabus exercise and has to be done.
Pity the poor student who has to do his first ever on GFT!
Or for real on a solo flight. Thinks.....legal liability.....?
In R22 or other low-inertia rotor helicopter, I have three suggestions:
1. Don't try (intentional) EOL until comfortably below MAUW.
2. Avoid gusty/windsheer conditions (and NB R22 Flight Manual Limitations on flying in strong winds)
3. Hover, Hover-Taxy or Constant Attidude EOLs: 10 kts minimum windspeed and Flare EOLs run on with 10kts through the disc.
And finally, if you get the chance, do some with another current FI to get your confidence up again!
Good luck!

[Old Man Rotor]

This is the perienial argument.........to do it or not to do it.............

And there is no simple answer......it really depends on where you are in the Industry.

A CFI at a basic training school, or the Blue Suits at BHT DFW can auto those things to a dime every time [is the one with that beer tummy still there?]..........but so what??

On the other side of the coin the need to auto to touch down in a S76 is just not justified..........

That is not to say that the guys arn't expected to auto to a "Spot" for the final flare..... but then the throttles are back at 100% for the cushion.........to get to that spot is the critical part, NOT THE LANDING.

Most heavy fisted folk with flat pitch, high NR and approaching the cushion will get the thing on the ground safety.........but getting to that point is far more difficult.
That "Spot" may be a break in the trees, a vacant house lot, a crossroad or a school yard......but the landing will be untidy to say the least if you can't get to the "Spot"

For those guys that preach the requirement to complete the Engine Off stuff to the ground.........try pulling the mixture to lean/Cutoff at 2000 ft, then switches off, fuel off......and your on your way.......the total effect is far different to just closing a throttle.........the silence is deafening to start with, the required NR control is far more sensitive with no residual engine power........until you practice that, you can't claim you practice Engine Off to the ground.

If it is a JAR requirement........just great, watch the number of wrecks increase, and the already huge hull and liability insurance premiums go off the scale.....another great JAR decision.

[Helinut]

Old Man Rotor,

Overall, I don't disagree with what you say. However, the requirement for full EOLs has been in UK requirements for ever, for singles anyway. So for the UK, the JAR makes little difference.

There was at least one training school that used to avoid EOLs (I am sure that there may be others). As a visiting examiner, I did a PPL test on one student there who went very pale when I asked for an EOL. I de-briefed the owner after the test, but they continued to ban EOLs "for insurance reasons". I did no more tests there. They went bust owing people a lot of money a short time later (not suggesting these were necessarily linked).

I think it is very much a matter of practice and currency - I would not want to do a practice EOL at the moment except dual with a current FI, as I am way out of practice (as I fly twins these days).

[cyclic flare]

Helinut,

However, the requirement for full EOLs has been in UK requirements for ever, for singles anyway. So for the UK, the JAR makes little difference.

This may well be a requirement but in reality it is ridiclous to expect a PPL to be able to carry out an EOL on his GFT. (Not my words but from several examiners who i have produced students ready for test)

A very experienced examiner from Blackpool said to me that he would not expect a pilot with less than 500 hours to be able to carry out an EOL sucessfully so how is it possible for a 50 hour ppl to complete this on his GTF, maybe the CAA know the answer?

One thing i do know for sure is they wont be completing this exercise in my machine.

In the UK we are fortunate to have many experienced pilots who are capable of completing the EOL sussessfully during training on an airfield. If you travel to the USA (Florida) and ask them for EOL training very very few are willing to complete this exercise.

[weedflier]

"This may well be a requirement but in reality it is ridiclous to expect a PPL to be able to carry out an EOL on his GFT".

I would have thought that the one time it is least ridiculous to expect a PPL to be able to carry out an EOL is on his GFT as that is the time when he should have had the most concentrated training he is likely to get.

" i have produced students ready for test"

If they aren't able to carry out an EOL on a GFT they're not ready for the test. Many years ago when I was an examiner (and yes it wasn't so long ago that the R22 hadn't been certified!) any PPL student who couldn't do an EOL on his GFT would not have gained his PPL(H).
:=

[tippathplane]

Maybe i'm just not reading this properly but in the UK do you guys actually turn the engine off for this procedure? I trained in Australia and during my course most of the Auto's performed where to the ground. IE enter Autorotation at 1000ish throttle closed all the way down to around 75 roll it into the overtravel bit and land it from there, However not once did the instructor kill the engine for real. As I said maybe I just misunderstand the definition of you Engine off techinque.

[Helinut]

TPP,

We do the same as you in OZ; it would be foolhardy not to be able to recover from a poorly executed practice EOL. Never thought of it before, but maybe we should call it engine disconnected landing or something??

Cyclic Flare,

Are you saying that the examiners you mention don't follow the requirement to test pilots with an EOL??

[cyclic flare]

Helinut,

I am not saying that the examiners don't carry out EOL on the test i am sure they do. But i imagine this is a dual excercise or do you just sit back with your arms folded.

[soggyboxers]

When I used to conduct engine offs on a GFT it was very much a solo effort on the part of the examinee - but the air of nonchalance was entirely contrived and I was ready to take control in the final stages if need be! Naturally if that happened I'd congratulate the student on a good attempt and ask him to show me another one just like it, only better. This used to relax them as they felt I had confidence in their abilities. I don't remember anyone that I flew with failing a PPL test for failing to complete a satisfactory engine off. I wasn't looking for anything like perfection - just the ability of the candidate (and any passengers with him) to survive if it should ever happen.

try pulling the mixture to lean/Cutoff at 2000 ft, then switches off, fuel off......and your on your way.......the total effect is far different to just closing a throttle.........the silence is deafening to start with, the required NR control is far more sensitive with no residual engine power........until you practice that, you can't claim you practice Engine Off to the ground.

Can't say I've noticed any difference at all in Nr control, though the noise is marginally less. In 1990 Eurocopter had a problem with a faulty batch of freewheels on the AS350B and it was not permitted to reduce power below a certain level without shutting down the engine - naturally that required the engine to be shut down for all autos and EOLs. The requirement was only in force for a fairly short period of time but it certainly helped to concentrate the mind when conducting training or tests! :D

[Helinut]

Cyclic Flare,

It would depend a bit on what was being flown, but there would be no arms folded!. There are 2 drawbacks to doing flight tests, especially initial licence issue PPL(H):

under JAR an examiner is not supposed to have flown with the pilot before so he/she is an unknown to you (and you to him/her);
almost without exception and no matter how it is approached the pilot being tested is stressed up and can be full of surprises!

Without departing into a discussion of types, lets say that certain types have less margin for error than others. I would also vary what I did a bit, depending upon how the rest of the flight had gone.

Any doubts though, and I would take it or, at least sort out the bottom end. There is always the option to try again.

I do agree that what it is reasonable to expect of an ab-initio PPL(H) is less than a more experienced pilot. In my mind, I feel that what I wanted was for the pilot to be able to show that they could fly the thing to the ground to the flare etc. in such a way that whatever then happened, there was a high probability that all occupants would survive.

[Vfrpilotpb]

The lady Cfi who taught me the way to fly was totally commited to EOLs, and looking back through my log i see only three flights when we didnt carry out at least three attempts, so much so that I now do at least two on every flight , I am totally happy in the knowledge that if the noise ceased I would be able to put the craft down and talk about it afterwards ( that is my hope) I may crawl away but then we'll have to wait and see! lifes full of little supprises.;)

[t'aint natural]

Although I do EOLs to the ground, I'm convinced that they are counter-productive.
Modern helicopters are remarkably crashworthy. As long as you have a crack at the flare, you'll probably walk away.
The best pilot in the world will turn the machine over fifty per cent of the time when landing off-airfield.
What is really deadly, and what we do not practice, is getting into autorotation when the engine fails.
During practice, we give a warning, and enter relatively gently. It's not like that in the real world.
Research on Robinsons has been unable to turn up a single instance where a pilot who established autorotation was killed on landing - neither in countries where EOLs are mandated, nor where they are not.
Every pilot who was killed after the engine quit failed to establish autorotation.
What does that tell you?
We're polishing the wrong end of the autorotation, and writing off a lot of helicopters doing it.

[Irlandés]

T'aint,
my instructor would every now and again gently cut throttle on me while my hand was off the collective (dialling in the ATIS or whatever). He would also do it at night at the end of a nav-ex when I was tired and my guard was maybe lower than it should be. On hearing the horn he'd expect me to have the lever down well inside 2 seconds. The entry would always be messier than a 'HASEL' auto but it did teach good reflexes (Pavlov's dogs springs to mind). Once entered the auto would then be aborted more or less straight away. It was the entry he was worried about and not so much the rest. Like you, he firmly believed in the importance of polishing both ends. Do you ever do anything similar with your students?

Irlandés

[Helinut]

t'aint natural,

Not sure about your analysis of the problem, in the sense that I see both ends of the EOL as important.

There is more than one interpretation of the accident history you quote (assuming it is true). It could be that it ain't possible to get the lever down fast enough in a Robbo in some circumstances - but that would go back over old ground that I am not overkeen to revisit.

The guys I used to be most worried about were PPL private owners who never used to practise autos at all. When you eventually persuaded them to go and do some dual time, the autos were just horrible. I often felt they would not have responded to a real engine failure at all. But aside from extreme cases like that, just how difficult is it to push a lever down promptly??

I always used to do a small number of throttle chops instructing on the R22 (both demos and for the student). Mind, if there was any student hesitation the lever went down anyway, so I am not sure exactly what it proved. I always thought it worthwhile to give some practical idea of the indications of engine failure.

In the US of A, I believe that they do shed loads of chops, but others will be able to comment on that.

My feeling is that any pilot needs to be competent and current at both ends of the EOL, if you fly a single. The level of competence ought to be considerably greater, if you are a professional pilot.

[soggyboxers]

t'aint
Although I do EOLs to the ground, I'm convinced that they are counter-productive.
I don't see how that can be. I always tought my students to be able to do an EOL that they could not only walk away from, but (provided they had been able to pick an area where it was possible to carry out a successful EOL), the aircraft would also sustain minimum damage. This also ensures that it is an EOl you can walk away from.;)
The best pilot in the world will turn the machine over fifty per cent of the time when landing off-airfield.
Where exactly do you get the statistics to back up this assertion?
During practice, we give a warning, and enter relatively gently. It's not like that in the real world.
Once they had built up a reasonable level of competence and confidence, I never used to give my students any warning during practice autos, nor did we enter gently - I just used to chop the throttle sharply, even in a climb, and afterwards say 'practice EOL'. It's surprising, even in a Robinson, just how much time there is to enter auto, and when a student knows that it can happen at any time when he/she is flying he/she will start to develop the instinct of always expecting it to happen and be looking out for a suitable emergency landing site.
;)

[dzeroplus]

I learned to fly in Western Australia and within the 105 hour CPL syllabus at least 10 hours were throttle off landings to the ground.

The CFI would demonstrate at least 3 Engine Stopped at 1000 feet Landings at various stages of the training syllabus. This defiantly gave me a better understanding of the whole “scary” autorotation process and demonstrates that if you were unfortunate enough to suffer a real one, with a suitable landing site, it is possible to land the chopper (R22 in this case) with zero damage.

The CFI was not particulary keen on demonstrating the full engine stop landings, not because of the increased risk factor, but because of the lack of a cool down period before stopping the engine.

The Approved Testing Officer and the Chief Flying Instructor were of the opinion that as long as a student at the end of their training can enter auto, control the RRPM and airspeed, pick and make a landing site, flare at about the right height with the correct type of flare for the prevailing conditions, level the chopper at the right height and keep it straight with minimal drift and yaw on touchdown, that is sufficient for a flight test and keeping the pilot and any passengers alive in the event of a real one.

Hope this is of some assistance.
:D

[pa42]

CF:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but nobody seems to have asked yet. Your original post says throttle not closed until leveling skids--are you saying you have power ON during "autorotation", or is it that you maintain a high idle while sprague clutch disengaged during autorotation?

I've not seen either usage described in texts. Is there a reference?

I have no problem with maintaining a high idle, of course, given the potential for an unsuspected carb-ice-dead-engine if the R22 tach reads below 55, ergo telling you nothing!

[Helinut]

PA42,

I am fairly sure that CF means that he does not put the twist grip into the detent position until late on in the EOL. I certainly do/did the same, as it allows recovery to a hover recovery until very late, if all the ducks were not lined up.

Unless the twist grip is turned and held into the detent, lifting the lever would activate the mechanical correlator. This would open the closed throttle valve in the carb and the engine would speed up and the needles "join".

[cyclic flare]

Helinut,

You have hit the nail on the head.

I wonder how many others carry out this procedure. It gives you a much larger margin than closing the throttle (into the detent) at 300ft especially if your a novice.

Sounds like this guy got it wrong and he has probably been flying all his life. So what chance has a brand new PPL got to complete it sucessfully. And don't mean to be able to walk away.

AAIB Bulletin No: 8/2002 Ref: EW/G2002/06/10 Category: 2.3
Aircraft Type and Registration: Robinson R22 Beta, G-BOEW
No & Type of Engines: 1 Lycoming O-320-B2C piston engine
Year of Manufacture: 1988
Date & Time (UTC): 10 June 2002 at 1103 hrs
Location: Cranfield Airport, Bedfordshire
Type of Flight: Aerial Work (Training)
Persons on Board: Crew - 2 Passengers - None
Injuries: Crew - None Passengers – N/A
Nature of Damage: Tail boom severed and tail rotor drive shaft damaged
Commander's Licence: Airline Transport Pilot’s Licence (Helicopters)
Commander's Age: 65 years
Commander's Flying Experience: 11,778 hours (of which 543 were on type)
Last 90 days - 93 hours
Last 28 days - 24 hours
Information Source: Aircraft Accident Report Form submitted by the pilot

The flying instructor was demonstrating a practice 'engine off' landing for a student. It was the seventh such landing that he had carried out that morning. During the run on, one main rotor blade struck the tail boom causing both the boom and tail rotor drive shaft to break.

The helicopter was landing on the grass helicopter strip, designated 22, heading into wind. The surface wind was reported as being from 230° at 24 kt. The initial ground contact was made on the port side skid on the right hand edge of the strip, which has a boundary marked with scraped earth that is slightly raised above the surrounding grass.

The pilot felt that the initial skid contact with this edge destabilised the run on and his subsequent attempted corrections led to large control inputs at a low main rotor speed.

The pilot commented that there were no cockpit indications to show that any damage had occurred, but he felt a slight vibration and a change of rotor noise following the event. The accident was observed by ATC who alerted the pilot and advised him to shut down.













--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published 8 August 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to August 2002 Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Bulletins Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Air Accidents Investigation Branch Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Aviation Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to Home Page

[nonradio]

Cyclic Flare: I expect you are not the only one who is at a heightened state of readiness on EOLs! Which in the case of the R22, is no bad thing; your 15kt wind min is not a bad idea either, though a student ought to be shown and practice in all conditions. In any event as it's a legal req. in the UK I'm sure noone is only doing power recoveries and passing a skill test.
In practice only a very brave soul would flutter down in a 22 arms folded in training or on test and in truth the odd tweak here or there to save that long walk back is almost de rigeur, especially as the throttle on Robbies is held in the detente. With respect to B206 or B47 then arms folded EOLs are possible and with a bit of wind ditto R44...although throwing £250k+ worth of machinery at the ground concentrates the mind, too
From my own experience the throttle can be popped in the detent at a fairly early stage in the descent -say 3-500'- so long as airspeed and RRPM are as desired and it's quite clear you'll land close to the intended touch down point (sometimes called a "gate"). That allows a bit more time to settle into the EOL without being too hurried at the bottom. As for R22 engine offs in the hover, well - yer pays yer money and yer takes yer chances...
I'm not helping am I?;)

[t'aint natural]

Robinson Safety Notice SN-27 of June 1994 is titled SURPRISE THROTTLE CHOPS CAN BE DEADLY and advises flying instructors how they should give a student a simulated power failure. It says:
"Never truly surprise the student. Tell him you are going to give him a simulated power failure a few minutes before, and when you roll off the throttle, loudly announce 'power failure'."
The instructor is also advised to plan to initiate recovery within one second, regardless of the student's reaction.
The safety notice came about because surprise throttle chops were killing people.
As to the rollover statistics off-airfield (Soggyboxers) that's deduction from long discussion with high-time pilots. The last for-real engine-off I heard about was the Puma in Oxfordshire last month. Full crew, supremely competent, and it rolled over. No reflection on the crew - that's just the shape of the earth.
As to doing as little damage as possible, yes, but don't make it an article of faith. If the helicopter's let you down, stuff the damned thing. Frank will make you another one.
Unfortunately, the ones we smash up were usually in perfectly good nick, and we break them practising the wrong end of the auto.

[Happy Landing !]

During my last LPC (R44). The examiner told me to reach up and feel the vibration on the compass.
I obviously used my left hand for this, and whilst I was "Feeling the vibration" he slowly rolled off the throttle.
I considered it a very worthwhile excercise.

[Old Man Rotor]

Now see what that dodgy Compass caused.........

Not being a whizz on the old 22, is there a directional verses yaw correlation interface???....most likely fed from the parrallel dual hydraulic systems. .

Touch the compass and yaw left......surely with this highly sofisticated piece of machinary there would be two redundant systems looking at this problem???...shock horror.

Why don't you learn on a turbine.........then the problem will not be one afterall..........TBF over 50,000 hours.......about 7-8 normal pilot lifetimes????.....or perhaps 5-6 of us??;)

[HeloTeacher]

I've done about 700 or 800 hours of instruction in 22's and 44's (mostly 22's). This has included PPL, CPL, and recurrent training.

To teach entry and spot selection/accuracy:
-throttle chops at cruise in the training area, unannounced (eventually) and taken to a power recovery in the hover. The throttle was returned to 104% in the late flare, not the auto.

To teach the final few seconds:
-autos to a prepared surface (ie runway) with run-on in low wind conditions.

There has been the odd bumpy landing but I have never felt on the verge of rolling one over or losing a tailboom.

[Shawn Coyle]

Does anyone do autorotations in the R-22 regularly on paved surfaces?
Just curious, not being of that religious persuasion.

[Red Wine]

And another costly Statistic...........

Just ask the Grade 1 Instructor that rolled a 22 into a heap the other day whilst demonstrating an Auto onto Moorabbin Airport Australia........maybe 800 acres of flat space.

It will cost that Company [Perhaps Australia's most respected Training Institution].......the loss of one machine....lost income....higher insurance....possible injuries........and for what.

Some preconceived view that this action which could have been more serious.........that may actually save a future potential situation from getting as bad!!!!......lets get real.

Glad I am not the Instructor, the owner, or the insurance company............

[pa42]

We seem to be in general agreement that rolling the heli into a ball is not good, nor fun. And that one of the ways it happens is what I'll call here the "powerless touchdown" (P.T.), since EOL obviously has many meanings to the many contributors.

Beyond saying powerless touchdown is dangerous and tricky, how about it we collect here on this thread a training aid: specifically,

A List of Major Avoidable Causes of Damage

in powerless touchdowns.

For instance: is touchdown on an unsuspected lumpy surface a major factor? Can we reduce damages by touching down only on spots we've walked out before going back up to commence auto?

Is failure to get skids properly level just prior to impact a common cause, or do almost no helicrunches result from poor skid-leveling-skills?

How many folks overdo the flare, trying for zero groundspeed, and find themselves with no cushion left? Or with no tail rotor left? How do we get the proper mix of speed-vs-alt-vs-RRPM firmly understood in safer maneuvers & ground training before we commit to a real P.T.?

One suspects that pilots prefer to practice in significant winds (10-20k?) for reduced ground travel, and that last-minute yaw-and-drift leads to rollover--how common is this as the cause-of-crunch? Where in the curriculum do we improve this sub-module of training before having to exercise it at end-of-auto?

And other questions. Post your own; be sure to provide real or imagined answers & statistics where possible.

One assumes that sharing a known explanation for previous accidents with the community will prevent at least one helicrunch, perhaps 10 or 20 helicrunches. Help the industry--share views on the Prevention as well as the Problem.

====
By the way, who will be the first to advertise a rental/instructional special low rate on 20-30 consecutive powerless touchdowns USING A RUNOUT R22? If hull value is down to $35,000 just before airframe overhaul due, seems like THAT would be the ship to use; cut a special deal with the insurance company to concentrate all the school's autos in that ship. And create a brisk market for 2000-hour R22's, too!

(Personally, I don't practice powerless landings solo--it seems too much to me like cutting mixture on BOTH engines of AMEL for dead-stick practice. $160,000 risk for infinitesimal gain! Like buying Enron, or landing in White House front yard without flak vest.)

[cyclic flare]

pa42, fantastic post lets hope we get a reponse from the really experiened guys / girls.

Im off training now, will i be doing EOL,s i've got 15kts ???

[Thomas coupling]

I believe a successful landing (one where the crew walk away) is the aim of the game. A professional helicopter pilot includes (as a priority) EOL's and TR problems in their inventory.
If a pilot can prove to themselves that they can survive an EOL/TR control malfunction, then they can get on with the task in hand much more confidently.
The trouble is...forced landings, not under power, are exceedingly difficult to perform successfully. there are so many variables:
wind direction
height
speed
type of landing surface
reaction time
Nr control
Day/Night
Adrenaline flow
I was trying to recall how many EOL's I've done. Probably well in excess of a 1000 (on singles). Unfortunately, less than 5% were unannounced! So it doesn't really provide you with an ideal perspective in doing one in anger. I found that EOL's were a culmination of honing helicopter skills to as close to perfection as you can get. There is NO room for error once it goes quiet!
Flying an unstable glider to a full stop is probably the most exhilarating experience one can ever go through in helo flying.

That was 8 years ago, and now I can't even spell ELO(I fly twins). I feel there is a gap in my inventory now, one that is forever bugging me. However I still think about my parameters whilst flying and wonder whether I could make that field down there, safely. It's not a comfortable feeling. I know people say the chance of an EOL in a twin is millions to one, but people also say, you're only as good as your last accident!!!
Perhaps, really, I miss that thrill as the cab hits the deck in a straight line, no drift, no excess speed, level...as you lower the lever and she comes to a halt with decaying Nr and you exhale deeply with a huge smile on your face :D
My advice to ALL single drivers, is: make sure your EOL skills are near the top of your inventory or you might not live to regret it :eek:
Besides, it's what flying is all about......................

[Fanstops also result from: contaminated fuel / blocked fuel filter(s) / disconnected air bleeds to metering valves / icing / heavy rain / fires / leaking oil pipes...to name but a few].

[t'aint natural]

Just my opinion, - but the key to success with engine-off landings is preventing the engine from going off.
Let's talk about Robinsons, as they do more than half of all single-engine helicopter hours and more than 90 percent of private training.
I'll say it again - as far as I can ascertain, no R22 pilot who got into autorotation has ever been killed on landing, either in countries where EOLs are mandatory or elsewhere. They die because engines fail, and they don't react quickly enough.
Is it possible to genuinely teach students to react in time? I don't think so. Bearing in mind the strictures against surprise throttle chops, it's difficult even to demonstrate engine failure. Requiring a pilot to be sufficiently keyed up, every second of every minute of every flight, to react in time is also asking the impossible.
But it is also true to say that most engine failures in Robinsons are caused by carb icing.
Therefore, it is important that the student know that if they forget everything else they were told and shown, they remember carb heat. Stamp it on their foreheads, write it on the bubble in chinagraph, go bananas when they forget.
Being able to land blue-side-up engine-off is a virtual irrelevance. Shame to smash up so many good machines practising shutting the stable door, again and again and again.

[HeloTeacher]

I have to comment of the last post. If it is truly not possible to teach students to adequately enter the auto after a true surprise engine failure, then how do you account for anyone ever getting into the autos you state are always survivable?

I have worked with dozens of students and low-time new hire pilots and all have been able to get an R22 or R44 into the auto following a surprise 'throttle chop' or they were not considered to be ready for the flight test/job.

It is true that carb ice and distractions from the aviating part of the job are large dangers for pilots of these types but that doesn't mean proper response isn't possible.

In regards to discussion further up the list, I have always performed autos to touchdown only on surfaces that have been inspected by myself and that I deem as minimal risk to the aircraft. Surprise practice engine failures off airfield and in areas I haven't surveyed are always taken to the hover power recovery to minimize risk. We also strived to avoid being predictable. Your student should NOT be able to anticipate when the engine will 'quit' on a training flight. These off-airfield autos were performed to teach just what was discussed above by Tain't Natural, a good entry to a stabilized auto that reaches a good landing spot. This is a survivable auto.

If I really thought that an engine failure was a guaranteed death sentence for these pilots then I would have a very hard time sleeping at night.

For myself, I had a student test my ability to enter an auto in an R22. While talking with my hands in the cockpit she had a small mental blunder and rolled off the throttle while in a max t/o power climb through a little over 1000'. As I heard the engine die I took control, entered the auto and was heading for a field. It wasn't until about halfway down that I noticed the engine idling (the horn covered the noise for a few seconds) and rolled up throttle to fly away. I was surprised but I was happy to learn that I would get the pole down.

[pa42]

For Thomas coupling: you state "I was trying to recall how many EOL's I've done. Probably well in excess of a 1000 (on singles)."

Sounds hopeful--you're still with us, alive and well!?

Are all those helicopters also well? That is, was that 1000 without damaging any of the ships? (Be honest, now!)

AND are we safe to consider all of those were truly powerless touchdowns, in the sense that the needles were not synchronized before touchdown??

If both are true, then evidently the maneuver CAN be quite safe if carefully done in benign terrain (one wonders, after all the accident rumors), AND we are further impelled to improve training so the low-time guys can be as successful.

To what three major ingredients would you attribute your apparently accident-free 1000 P.T.'s? Share the secret, while we're all still alive!

(Especially needful, since there have been so far no substantive contributions to my proposed 'list of avoidable damage causes' of a few days ago.)

[SASless]

During the 60's-70's....fledgling US Army helicopter pilots did EOL's as a simple matter of course. I can recall some flight periods that were devoted to nothing else....one right after another and another and another....until they became second nature. The engine remained at idle throughout the maneuver from the time the throttle was rolled off until it was rolled up again during a before takeoff check for the next circuit. There were contests (very informal and most unapproved) to see who could slide the longest distance...who could land closer to a predetermined spot...who could hold the bird at a hover without engine power the longest.....all of which taught one the ability of the UH-1 (Bell 204/205) to perform in autorotation.

Autorotatations were stressed because of the very strong likelihood you would be doing some in anger within the next year while flying combat in Vietnam. FOD, in the form of 7.62 - 14.7mm lead pellets was a very common happening there....in addition to the normal rate of engine failures. It is reported that at one time, there were over 7,000 helicopters operational in Vietnam.

[Thomas coupling]

PA42: I really wasn't intending to boast with that figure. I'm sure several of my colleagues in the mil have clocked up similar as instructors on the basic training units (Gazelles)(Wasp(Scout)!)

As SAS stated, we would spend hours a day at that stage in their course, doing real EOL's (no engine running at all). All perfectly normal. However, as I said surprise EOL's were few and far between. We would let them judge the entrance position from 1000' initially, into wind, modify the glide (with power if necessary-to make the spot), then chop the throttle completely.
I never looked in to "match any needles" I'm afraid!! too busy looking outside!
Eventually we'd practice downwind(180, offset)/range(bleed the Nr down)/low speed(from 30kts,high power)/min speed(going backwards to start with before converting to fwd speed, and finally an unannounced EOL from the overhead at height using all of the above.
The incidences of damage were remarkably small. In fact In all my years as an instructor I can only think of a handful of 'bumps' where either the bottom of the fenestron scraped the deck causing the sacrificial flange to crack, or the skids digging in too deep at the end of the run on causing the adf aerials to head butt the ground!!
My worse experience was of a student who froze with panic on the collective when I wanted to slow the bottom of the descent - we overran the landing zone and skidded along the runway!!

I wonder if the mil still do EOL's???????

[KENNYR]

TC....................I have to agree with you. I too have done countless numbers of EOL's in Gazelles, Bell 47 and Scout without so much as bending or cracking a skid or a frangeable tail. Sure students try to kill you every flight, but, with experience you get to know what they are going to do and when.

I dont agree with teaching EOL's to an exact spot, thats asking too much of a student, but as a pure test of skill for an experienced pilot, its unbeatable.

[pa42]

Shawn Coyle:
I don't think anybody answered your question on R22 EOL's to hard surfaces; so, IME, that's the ONLY way they do them, except perhaps under the rare conditions when the ship won't slide. My counter-question: is there a substantial percentage of Non-R22 EOL practice to turf or dirt or (what else is soft?)?

(The widespread doctrine in f/w retractables is DO NOT, EVER, make a gear up landing on soft surfaces, for they tend to roll up under the belly and total the airframe, whereas hard (smooth) surfaces only grind off the lowest 1" of metal, which can be replaced.)

=====
Thomas coupling:
Thanks for the reassurance, maybe the crunch frequency is different in R22's; sounds like military pilots get MUCH more EOL practice than civilian!

However, I haven't given up on getting somebody to list major mistakes low-timers make; you mentioned also the difficulty of success because of wind, altitude, speed, surface, reaction time, D/N and adrenaline. To simplify discussion, let's discard wind (assume calm), specify LOTS of altitude (1000' AGL, so the descent is stabilized), hard smooth surface (spacious asphalt/concrete ), Nr stable 'til flare, Daytime, nerves of steel (no extra adrenaline).

Now what? If the Heli-rated solo pilot has these things all set & taken care of, what does he do WRONG most commonly that causes damage/injury? (That is, assuming it's largely a civilian pilot problem, where are the CFI's falling short in training emphasis?)

I realize you quit doing instruction some years back, and it was military equipment--given that, what flare-to-touchdown errors on the part of the student were you most alert for because the greatest number of students tried to destroy the aircraft with them? How can I most effectively focus my students' attention on the skills they need?

(Don't get me wrong, I do have a syllabus covering these topics--but I'm always looking for enhancements.)

[soggyboxers]

I did a few thousand EOls in the R22 (without the needles synchronised) back in the old ab-initio instructing days. Aircraft undamaged (honestly:D )
As for engine failures; never had one for real in a single, but had a couple in twins, which is why I always do autos to a flare and power recovery in twins on an OPC. :D

[NigD2]

SAS and anyone else

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that it is possible to land the UH-1, cut the throttles, then lift the collective and there is enough inertia in the blades to lift the heli into the hover, yaw through 180 and land it again as smoothly as normal.

Question 1 - Do you know if this is this true?

Question 2 - Do you (or anyone else) think this make EOLs in a "big machine" less daunting and safer than in, say an R22, with a low inertia blade?

PS My biggest worry regarding real autos in the R22 is not the bit at the bottom but getting the lever down in the 1. something seconds that you need to!!!!

[B47]

To give you an idea of the available intertia at the bottom in a Bell 47 EOL, I was recently told by an ex AAC instructor that the 'show-off' exercise to give students an idea of how much they had to play with, was:

EOL to a marked spot, lift off turn 90 degrees, move three yards, put her down again, lift off, turn, etc. with the challenge to complete all four corners of the square.

Not many made the fourth, but it was possible!

I'm sure this isn't a myth, as another AAC instructor told me the same story.

All very impressive, but with hydraulics engine driven (not off the transmission), there's no such thing as a practice for real....

[cyclic flare]

NigD2,

Flare, flare and flare. Wait 5 seconds then lower the lever and you will still be flying in a R22. The RRPM can still be recovered as low as 75% possibilly lower. Not seen it below 80% myself.

PS. Don't try this at home.

[t'aint natural]

Helo Teacher:
I'm afraid I'm a lot less sanguine than you about pilots' ability to get into autorotation after a sudden and complete engine failure in an R22.
In the case of a partial or gradual engine failure I'm sure there would be few problems, but where something like carb icing turns the engine off like a light, especially in the climb, I'm simply not convinced that the average person's recognition processes/reaction time are up to the job.
As to the engine-off landing, look at it this way. 1800 fpm is about 20mph. Even if you don't lift a finger, by the time the skids have splayed and the crumble zone has concertina-ed you're not looking at deadly force.
Once again, I'm talking about the R22 here. I'd happily zero-zero a 206 from 100 feet at 30 knots in the climb.

[Vfrpilotpb]

A brilliant man called Geof Day, on one of my annuals showed me just how far you can take the R22, being still full of the pages of every Heliflying book available I can tell you i thought I could pee faster than the rotor was going round, and still being here proves that it taught me a very good lesson, and just how long 5 seconds are :eek:

[pa42]

Tantalizing post, that!

Just how far DID Geof take the R22? Inquiring minds want to know!

[moosp]

Yes we'd all like to know about low rotor speed experiments, but I am REAL suspicious of experienced pilots who are able to take an aircraft to an extreme that is outside the normal operating envelope of the POE.

Yes, I have seen a Robinson factory test pilot take the RPM of an R22 low enough to widen my old eyes but they also know at which point the boom chop occurs from their flight test and computer simulation data. They are thus able to avoid it.

If a totally competent flight instructor chooses to explore the flight envelope beyond where the factory has gone, then he will one day find the aircraft's limitation by trial and error. And then it will be too late.

Please folks, let's not get into macho contests to see who has gone further than the next guy (And it is usually guys who do this stuff...) with his particular machine. Big cohones make big holes in the ground.

[Red Wine]

Just read an interesting and relevant story from a book Called " Helicopters Will Take You Anywhere" written by Ron Newman, a well known and highly respected Australian Instructor..........[No not related to myself].....on page 136 he writes....

"Anyone who has had an engine failure at high power will tell you that the RPM decay and the yaw in a real engine failure are far greater than when simulating an engine failure by rolling off the throttle.

It doesn't matter how quickly you snap the throttle closed, it is still a gradual power reduction compared to an engine failure, particularly in a turbine engine where the turbine has to wind down from over 30,000 RPM.

I had a throttle cable jam at climb power in a Hughes 300 on a training flight, and as I couldn't lower the collective without causing an "overspeed" I had to continue climbing as I returned to the airport. By the time I reached the airport I had climbed to 4500' and at this point I got the student to pull the mixture out.

I have done thousands of practice autorotations but the severity of the yaw surprised me, and yet I knew it was coming"


Chaps, we are just practicing with one arm behind our back. If you are serious about teaching Engine Off's to the ground!!!!..............then do as the earlier posting suggested..........pull out the mixture or turn off the fuel...............

Only then are you serious.


Otherwise you are giving only false confidence..........

[t'aint natural]

...may I also suggest that for realism, you set out on a two-hour cross country on a warm, soporific day where nothing happens for the first 90 minutes, and however hard you try to concentrate your mind wanders to the business you're heading for...
then when the engine catches you out the blades will be clapping over your head before you can say goodnight nurse.
PS: Old Bill Barrell, who died of natural causes, once took the rrpm down below 80 percent on me "as a demonstration" and despite his track record and the fact that we were halfway through the FI course I told him I'd refuse to fly with him if he did it again.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

NASA did a detailed study, published in 2000, on acidents between 1963 and 1997 in USA.

Of the 8,436 accidents recorded by the NTSB, 5,371 involved commercially produced single piston helicopters. Now here's the kicker - of those 5,371 accidents, 1,554 or around 30% were attributed to loss of power. Virtually every one of the 1,554 loss of engine power accidents ended in the helicopter being destroyed or substantially damaged.

They say in the narrative: "Therefore, the fact that power-off landing proficiency is not required by the FAA to obtain a helicopter pilot's licence certification appears inconsistent with the number of accidents." They go further to say that "...it also appears that helicopters currently in the civil fleet provide marginal to inadequate autorotational capability for the average pilot to successfully complete the final flare and touchdown to a generally unsuitable site. Clearly, training in full autorotational landings - even to a prepared landing site - is avoided becase of real and perceived risks."

Seems to be pretty strong statistical evidence that pilots are consistently crashing as a result of engine failure. The authors of the study draw the conclusion that the bottom of the auto is entirely to blame, but I would say there must be some accidents in there that were caused by a slow reaction to the engine failure, with the obvious results.

The final quote above is also very interesting, because they seem to be saying that even in the face of obvious evidence that pilots consistently crash at the bottom of an auto, there is resistance to teaching the exercise because of "...real and perceived risks.

SASless, the US did avidly teach touchdown auto's, but during the Vietnam period when many pilots were needed very quickly, they discovered that the acident rate during training was way too high - so they stopped it. I don't however, think that the sausage factory of Vietnam era training applies to the situation now.

By the way; of the 5,371 single piston accidents, 18% involved instruction.

Anyway folks, there are some stats - what do you reckon??:}

[tabdy]

I think I will continue to avoid the R22!

EOLs should be a regular part of training - 2-3 at the end of every dual trip from the begining. Obviously the early flights will be demos until later in the training. By the time GFTs are in sight the instructor should feel confident in the student's ability and the student should by then have become confident in this exercise so it is no longer a "big deal".

Simulated engine failure should also be practised more than once on every dual trip. Gradually the "surprise" factor should be introduced until the student knows that if his hand is off the collective........

If you do not feel comfortable about EOLs you should not be flying a helicopter and certainly not with pax.

[flyer43]

Having spent several years as an ab-initio instructor, I've had experience of some of the more adrenalin raising moments in life, especially on low-inertia rotor types.
The first of these was during a practise engine failure during the climbout. As I started to partially roll the throttle back on the student the engine cut-out completely and we had an exciting moment or two during the 400 feet left between ourselves and the ground. All went well on this occasion but the schools procedure regarding carb heat setting for climbout was adjusted as a consequence.
The second was far more exciting when, during a practise EOL (with the throttle wound back to idle) the student was thrown by some windsheer at low level. As I reached for the cyclic and was about to say those immortal words "I have control" the student flared with such force on the cyclic that he nearly broke my thumb. Unfortunately, he also managed to push the tail rotor straight through the ground culminating in not much of the machine being left in one piece. Neither one of us was hurt, at least not physically.......
Having said all that, I continued for several more years teaching students and ensuring that they conducted many EOLs.
As far as I am concerned, the ability to carry out EOLs succesfully is paramount for any would be helicopter pilot as nothing can better prepare a pilot for the real thing than doing if for real, or at least as real as possible.

As for the training accident...... I would far rather fly with a pilot who has been through some sort of real emergency in his/her formative training than to fly with one who has never had such an experience. Not that I am suggesting that everybody should go out there and smash up a machine during their training!! I just think that going through something for real tends to impart a whole new respect for the dangers of flying.

[t'aint natural]

Squiffy: The NASA study is of limited value unless it differentiates between EOLs where auotorotation was established, and EOLs where it was not.
That's the nub of the matter.

[idle stop]

There's a very sage article by Derek Jones on R22 training in the latest edition of AOPA's 'General Aviation' magazine. The bottom line for him on EOLs is that they are 'better...demonstrated from an early stage and later practice the relatively simpler gentle single flare to a run-on landing with at least ten knots of wind through the disc.'
AND FINALLY...
At risk of repeating what I've said on other threads before, PLEASE do not try experimenting with anything contrary to limitations or advice in the helicopter Flight Manual. If you deliberately go right to the edge you may fall over. Those of us who do this for a living have been extensively trained to do so and work in a highly risk-managed environment.

[FlyAny]

I taught in the U.S. Army sixteen years before the moratorium on touchdown emergency procedures and, subsequent halt of those in all but approved schools. Didn't do TD autos again till I began training civilians.

I will never believe there is any argument or philosophy that replaces the benefit for touchdown autos. We did day straight-in, turning and, low-level (entry alt of 50') autos to the ground. Both hard surface and sod (I prefer sod). We did night straight-in autos to touch down. During the period of time that the "Night Hawk" phase was taught before NVG training, we did night autos with out landing lights.

If EOL training doesn't provide anything else, it provides the confidence that prevents greater than necessary apprehension and, errors comming from that apprehenson.

With out exaggeration, I don't know how many hundreds touchdown autos I've done in H269A's, OH-58's and, UH-1's and, I believe, with out question, that every EOL can be done safely if the instructor will only remember to only do them on the days the conditions will allow (yes, engines quit on bad days but, we have to accept that we can only teach so much), do them to a good surface and, be there for the whole maneuver (if the instructor isn't up to speed for the maneuver or, can't recognize the need to recover when things MIGHT be starting to go bad, he shouldn't be in the maneuver).

Two last points:

The qualification for stopping touchdown emergency procedures training in units was that the accident rate went down dramatically during the moratorium on touchdown emergency procedures training. (Read as: the child birth rate drops dramatically among women who enter convents)

The qualification for teaching EOL's is the rate of unsuccessful completions of actual EOL's as given above.

MY opinions, and happy to have em.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

What-ho Squiffy wrote:

Of the 8,436 accidents recorded by the NTSB, 5,371 involved commercially produced single piston helicopters. Now here's the kicker - of those 5,371 accidents, 1,554 or around 30% were attributed to loss of power. Virtually every one of the 1,554 loss of engine power accidents ended in the helicopter being destroyed or substantially damaged.

Yeah? Big deal. What was the fatality rate? Except for the insurance company, who really cares if the aircraft gets destroyed after a loss of power?

Let's not lose focus. The really important figure (the one omitted) is the one that tells us how many people died as a result of those botched autos.

[Happy Landing !]

I've been following this thread with great interest and decided as a result, to dust off the old instructor and go for a spot of EOL's to the ground revision. I continuously practice Auto's whenever I fly with suitably qualified passengers, with a recovery on the chosed spot.

The first one was a bit messy with a long ish run on - certainly survivable. The second got better - and after the 8th or 9th I was like an old pro.

I figure that if the entry's OK, and the needles are where thay should be. Providing the flare's put in at the bottom, everyone should walk away, even if the thing rolls.

The hard bit I think, is putting it where you want it to end up.
Moral of the story: "Training is for when things go wrong, and being in a position to put it right"

[Shawn Coyle]

In skid-equipped helicopters, there is a feeling that doing touchdowns on grass or sod is easier on the aircraft than landing on paved, hard surfaces.
Ain't necessarily so.
While it may be quieter, and appear to have a softer landing on grass than on pavement, consider:
a) the skids don't have a chance to flex as the load is transferred from the rotor to the skids - on grass the skids dig a trench and can't move, so the cross tube can only flex in the area between the mounts (Bell series anyway). This eventually leads to failure of the crosstube, but is also evident in those helicopters doing lots of autorotation touchdowns on grass having the tail lower to the ground.
b) if there is any misalignment between the direction you're pointing and the direction of flight, on grass this can cause the helicopter to be aligned pretty forcefully in the direction of flight - a pretty good cause for things like pylon whirl on the 206 series, as the transmission is free to rock from side to side. On paved surfaces you just slide with some misalignment, which can be easily corrected with pedals if you were worried about it.
c) the grass has a pretty high coefficient of friction, and as the skids are well below the CG, this can cause the helicopter to decelerate more quickly than you may wish- and possibly nose over. On paved surfaces, you decelerate rather gently, but with slightly more noise.
d) grass tends to be more uneven, aggrevating c) above.
The only small problem with landings on paved hard surfaces is that you wear out skid shoes more quickly. Get the improved skid shoes (good for several thousand touchdowns) and learn to accept the noise.
The only times I've ever had problems with the touchdown was on grass. There must be a good reason why Bell Helicopter on does touchdowns at their training school on pavement.

[Dantruck]

Never had the donkey quit on me yet, but I'm VERY confident I'd get it on the ground in one piece cos - like you I suspect - I was taught engine offs to the ground from day one. Yes, there was plenty of 500ft recoveries in the local area, but every other landing I ever made during training was to the ground.
Reference Shaun's grass-v-tarmac thing, above, I also got to do high speed powered run-ons on smooth concrete in a range of MD's at the factory as part of some type training, and I can tell you nothing builds confidence like actually hitting the ground again and again and again. Get some in, I say!

[Happy Landing !]

Dan,

Your beginning to worry me,

Next time you use one of my machines, I'll come with you !

Quite right though. So you knacker the cross tube, So what. That can be replaced.

[A check]

I am not very good at this lark, currently, maybe from what I have read in 5000 hours I will be ok, however, with my 20 odd hours and about 8 engine off landings to the ground, I will tell you of my experiences, first time, "that is mad!!!!" second time "ok let me try" third time "mmmm,I do not think I could do that." ect ect 7th time " I think i could do this" 8th time " Maybe not" Anyway, I feel a lot more confident of my instructors ( mad as they are ) and I hope that one day I could save my aircraft, myself and my passengers because of this early training.
p.s A test pilot in the H500 I was learning in said quite clearly to me, "engine off " I said "what did you say" he said "never mind"
i.e I am dead.

[Old Man Rotor]

Oh..how wrong you can be..............

Try landing a heavy [or light] B412 / 212 on the summer tarmacs of the mid west....

The skids do indeed indent and spread the hot soft black bitumen.....and we were just landing for refueling......and cost our owner heaps of $$$$ in tarmac repairs.

Yet alone if we hit the runway surface with some downward vertical force and slid a few yards or so!!!................many more $$$$$

[However I do understand your point........landing on a hard surface is smart and less painful]


But of course the BHT School use Tungsten Carbide shoes on their skids to slide on their prepared hard surfaces.........no one elese has the luxury of knowing where and when their emergency landing will occur.......thats only training not reality.


However, please don't misunderstand my comments.........all OEL or NEL should be made to the hard runway ....if possible!!!!

[griffinblack]

EOLs, or as we say Touch down autos. Quite honestly, I am not convinced of the argument that they are necessary. The skill is conducting Practice Forced Landing (PFL) ie positioning the aircraft "into the hole in the trees". The other skill necessary is to make the landing survivorable once there. These actions can be trained with power terms (practicing when to commence the flare and at what rate). The fact that you intial (pitch pull) a little high/low or overlevel or touch down cocked off -who cares? If you can't make your spot its all a waste of time.

This is the standard that is accepted in the military with highly trained proffesional pilots. I would be suprised if your average Joe civvy would have the capacity to develop skill sets to be consistently touching down without assistance. And if they do concentrate on that limited aspect of the touch down what about all the other stuff associated with positioning the aircraft.

I would fail a guy in a heartbeat if he couldn't get within 2-3 aircraft lengths of the touch down point. If he overleveled or I needed to take over at the pitch pull - I don't give a rats ar.e.

As for skidways. They are more forgiving but my experience with the US army is that they have a poor habit (negative habit transfer) of lowering the lever on touch down. It makes you stop expeditiously but we had one Sepo exchange guy damage one of our aircraft (even after being here for a couple of years) because he lowered the lever on "sod".

[Tail Bloater]

Oh! Oh!

Reading all the previous letters I see that there are two fields of opinion, those in favour and those against, obviously.

For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL. If 50 hours is not enough then I sugest that more hours are required by that student. As an instructor you have the 'duty' to perform as an instructor to the requirements of the syllabus as laid down in whichever authority you are operating. If you are unconfortable doing engine off landings then I can only suggest that yiou requalify after suitable retraining.
The R22 is a poor training helicopter as there are numerous limitations in regard to safety to which as an instructor you ought to be able to 'tune' your EOL's so that the EOL is safely conducted. I say 'tune' as a way of deciding the best weight/weather/ground conditions to best attain confident and contro;;ed landings. I do not believe that closing the engine down completely is necessary, sufficien that the throttle is closed to ground idle/idle once the area of the landing can be safely reached.
It amazes me that students are given the impression that all they require is 50 hours flying time to attain their PPL/H. How on earth can anyone know whether that prospective student has the ability to achieve that goal. I suspect that the training for EOL's is avoided until far too late in the training sequence to give confident handling at the Flight Test stage. I would recommend that instructors feed in EOL's at regular intervals and certainly before the students first solo. OK at this stage the student has only 'followed through' but should have the method in mind should things go quiet during the first solo.
Experienced instructors ought to be able to perform EOL's onto grass surfaces within the sloping ground limitations of the type of helicopter flown.
It's all to do with training and technique.
For those making regular EOL's with their students, I commend you and would feel safer with their students flying me.

[cyclic flare]

posted 17th February 2003 15:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh! Oh!



For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL.

SURELY THE ONUS IS ON THE EXAMINER NOT THE BRAND NEW AFIC OR FI(R) AS IT IS NOW.

[CyclicRick]

Tail Bloater has hit the nail on the head.
Going through the motions of an EOL is like nearly having sex, you haven't done it so you don't know what it feels like and you don't know how the machine reacts and you don't know how to react to it.
Learning to autorotate with a power recovery is fine, but is NO substitute for learning to land the machine with no engine power available whether on grass or a hard surface ( never done that one..too loud!).
How many people do you know that have never even put on full brakes in their car ( emergency stop) and when they have to CAN'T!! and that happens every day to thousands of people.

If a flying instuctor does not even feel comfortable doing EOL's then I question his/her right to be one....sorry.

[TomBola]

SURELY THE ONUS IS ON THE EXAMINER NOT THE BRAND NEW AFIC OR FI(R) AS IT IS NOW.

How can that possible be?! The duty of the examiner is to examine, to decide if the candidate under test is able to perform to the required standard for the issue of the PPL(H).
It is the duty of the instructor to advise his/her student whether they have reached that standard after the MINIMUM 50 hours requirement or whether they require further training. After all, the instructor's job is not just to teach soemthing parrot fashion, but to evaluate the student's performance and make judgements as to what additional training is required. If the instructor can't do that, then how can the student know how he/she is progressing? The examiner only comes in to the picture after the instructor is satisfied that the student has reached the required standardv and is ready for the flight test.
I also agree with Tail Bloater that EOL's should be introduced as early as possible in the course. I would not allow a student to go solo unless I was confident of his/her ability to be able to get the aircraft to a point where the landing should be survivable (albeit with the aircraft written off) as that is my duty to my student.

[A D ENUFF]

EOL's............THE SPORT OF KINGS

[jayteeto]

I currently teach EOLs at CFS Shawbury. Experienced (2000+) pilots go solo EOLs after approx 3hrs concentrated practice. They can hit a large field easily, but would struggle to make a nominated point consistently. Basic students? By the end of the course I have a checklist- 50/50 if they make nominated field + If they flare at the right height. 80/20 if they check the lever at a sensible height. !00% if they level and cushion. ie a sensible flare increases survivability by a huge margin. The rest? Panic, shock, disbelief, etc etc will erode a lot of their instinct and training, however we must still do the training to give pilots every chance. Teaching EOLs is fantastic, if instructors don't want to do it- quit now!

[Helinut]

Regular practice is key. I used to do ab-initio and commercial instruction, checking and testing on light singles of various types. Never forgetting the reality that we were throwing the beast at the ground, I used to get a real buzz from being able to demo and teach these. I also think it gave me a level of competence and confidence in being able to deal with an engine failure which helped my general flying.

I have now "progressed" to just flying twins and (apart from 6 monthly checks) doing only line flying with no opportunity to drop in the odd auto even. I really feel out of touch and am now relying on the very low probability of double engine failure. I can't even go and do some single engine stuff for fun, cos I am tied into a Flight Time Scheme that precludes me from doing other flying. A positive contribution to flight safety- I think not. :(

TC reminded me of this with his reminiscences.

Enjoy them while you can! :D

[Winnie]

Hi there all of you!
I'm currently teaching in Canada, where we are required to teach full-ons, but it really is up to the examiner to decide if he wants a full on demonstrated. I have finally gotten back into the habit of doing them all the way, and I really think they will give the student the edge needed to survive or even save the aircraft in a sticky situation (when the donkey leaves). However, I'm more than reluctant to send my 100 hr. student out with the examiner, regardles of the examiners experience, since he does not regularly fly "my" machine. Now I only have one machine, and with about 1000 hrs in it, I know fairly well what it does, but why should I let this fresh new student and the examiner out to do touchdowns in my only machine. Only last year did Transport Canada and a student roll a machine on a flight test, yet they still want them done on flight tests. I agree with all of you that these should be thaught to students, but personnally I'm never far off the controls during this, because I've personnally seen the end result of botched full ons.

Anyhow, this is just my opinion, and I realize this is not much of a pot stirrer, I enjoy reading all these threads, they give me (as an instructor) a lot of insight.

Shawn Coyle
Love your book (art and science...)
and would really love to come out to Mojave to do the Test pilot program, but then there is money...

[jayteeto]

Winnie, I apologise. Never really thought about the aircraft owners, us military types are spoiled with a hangar full to bend. Difficult one really, pity the examining board didn't have to provide the machine. I wonder if they would change the rules then................

[Helinut]

Winnie,

We have a similar problem in the UK with the R22. Examiners for the PPL(H) can be any Flight Examiner (type rated and in practice of course). Most significant schools have such a bod either on the staff or known to them. He is current on the R22 and is in the mainstream of ab-initio instruction, so no problem.

Unfortunately, the CAA insist that, for the commercial flight test, a CAA staff examiner is used. You don't get to choose. For a while this was pretty much always one person. Although this person had significant experience, it did not include R22 flying or instruction of ab-initio civi students. A number of R22s have been damaged during flight test EOLS with him as the PIC. Indeed, I have been told that one school has simply banned him from testing on their aircraft.

Looking further back into the past, there was a similar spate of damage accidents with another CAA staff examiner.

Currency and recent practice is key, no matter who you are.

The JAR FCL flight test list is clear that EOL "touchdowns" are a requirement for a licence issue flight test and indeed for the licence proficiency check (on singles). I don't think this is wrong myself, but I do think it is wrong for any pilot to undertake a flight exercise as PIC when he is not current and in practice himself, no matter who he works for.

[The Nr Fairy]

No names, no pack drill.

Depends on who you get to fly with on your commercial flight test. I had an ex-military bod, who tested me to the extent that he thought I was safe and competent to fly as a commercial pilot.

I was lucky. Any other examiner would have tested me longer, most likely with the same result. I think my school would have been happy with whatever my examiner had asked me to do - but then I've had similar feedback about this gent from other sources as well.

[ground effect]

any more to add to this thread folks??:confused:

[pohm1]

Check out the thread on the forced landing at the Finke Desert Race

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134077

The company trains with full touch down autos and the pilot in this case is damned happy that this wasn't his first try.

[chopperpilot47]

We teach full touch down autos to every student before we send them solo. There is no requirement in the USA for touch down autos, except CFI, but it makes sense to us to teach them. We are confident that all our students would make a reasonable job of it of the engine quits.

Of course, we fly Bell 47's so it is a bit of a non event.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

[CGWRA]

In my flight training we did every autorotation, regardless of if it was straight in or 180, in all wind conditions right to the ground. I'm very glad I did becuase alot happenes after the flare. A wise instructor once said, "if you arent going to make it, **** the spot, do a good auto" and I wouldn't understand that if I only knew how to get it to the flare.

My first job started with a check ride and an auto right to the ground. I got the job and others didn't. That should be reason enough alone.

[somepitch]

CGWRA

i think we must have had the same instructor! i seem to remember that exact quote being told to me a few times when i was just eeever so slightly off my spot while i was training...:}

[puntosaurus]

I had an ex Navy instructor in the early nineties who was nuts about autos to the ground, and his enthusiasm eventually rubbed off on me. About four years after I qualified he had his sixth genuine engine problem (first since the navy) in an R22 on a recovery from practise auto away from the field. Because it wasn't the nice smooth grass of the airfield, he tipped it over on landing, wrecked the machine but walked away with his student. The point there is that I would have backed him over anyone to land intact, but even he couldn't do it on a less than perfect surface.

The next point is that no matter how well trained the PPL is, I can't believe that anyone on this forum would recommend that PPLs practise EOLs on their own after qualification. In any case, no school would ever allow self fly hirers to do that. No matter how well greased the skills are at qualification, things will quickly get rusty. I reckon that the chances of a 1-300hr PPL pulling off an EOL away from an airfield without damaging the machine are less than 10%, even though the chances of walking away would probably be well in excess of 90%.

So let's get real here and lose some of the testosterone. We're training people for a vanishingly small probability event, the likely end point of which is a wrecked machine but safe passengers. Therefore I suggest that a sensible compromise is the approach we take at our school.
By our own (ie the instructors) choice only the head of training does EOLs, and he takes students who are proficient at hover recoveries for a concentrated session of full down autos before the first solo. This additionally serves as a very handy progress and standardisation check and quality control point.

Because he does all the EOLs he is very proficient and current, but he still has his fair share of heart attacks and some (thankfully minor) machine damage. Liability of the school and the instructors is managed, and the students are 'appropriately' trained. He then picks up EOLs again in the pre-GFT revision sessions, and post qualification in each LPC.

I'd like to do EOLs myself more often, but I don't want the liability, and if I'm honest with myself it's the reputational liability more than the financial which bothers me. It's a very small industry.

[170']

Puntosaurus...A voice of reason with good math :ok:

[AndyJB32]

I trained out in the states, so will naturally be biased toward the way the training was carried out there. In 1995 when i trained, the autos were done to power recoveries at a 5 foot or so hover height. The only autos to the ground were done to with students who were doing their CFI course. On the other hand, as soon as autos were introduced to the PPL student, throttle chops without warning were also introduced - from my understanding something that isn't done in the UK so much.

The thinking behind this was that the entry to (or failure to enter) the auto is the thing that would be more likely to kill people. If a flare could be carried out to a power recover in the hover, then if it ever occured for real, the final 5 feet or so would be surviveable, hopefully with the aircraft still in one bit. This was thought to outwiegh the likely cost due to damage to aircraft if all practice autos were done to the ground.

I'm not sure what the actual stats are for comparing accidents involving engine failures between countries that put the emphasis on training for the unexpected engine failure, and those that emphasis the auto to the ground. Might be interesting to find out. I'd be inclined to think that the biggest killer would be caused by a failure to establish the auto quickly enough, and not be able to recover the decaying RRPM. As i said though, i'm biased toward the training system that i experienced.

[manfromuncle]

As an experienced instructor, I will not do EOLs to the ground in an R22, sure, I can do them, but it's just too easy to bend up the aircraft, get the sack, get a reputation etc. I will do them in the Schweizer with a student, because it's a much more forgiving aircraft for it.

Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare, you're much more likely to get some sort of malfunction/chip light/partial power loss, than a full-blown engine failure.

Just look at the PPL accident stats, it's -never- engine failures, it's always collision (sticking the tail into a fence etc), continued flight in crap weather (bad decision making), dynamic rollover, overpitching, VRS etc. You're much better off emphasising these things in training rather than doing autos over and over again.

[WylieCoyote]

manfromuncle,

Would just like to say I agree with what you said and had the same ethos when I was instructing, I was always amazed how keen some people were to chuck the things at the ground. I would struggle to come up with more than a few cases of 22's having had an engine failure but can think of plenty of instances where machines were dinged practicing eol's. I also flew with plenty of people who didn't know how to re-act properly to something common like the clutch light staying on but thought they could do eol's well,when it turned out that the instructor had done most of the work and they just assumed they were s**t hot because so an so had done them all the time!

[manfromuncle]

Frank Robinson said on the safety course that, at one point, so many people were crashing R22s during practice autos that he seriously wanted to ban people from doing autos in them!

I've lost count of the number of students who can enter an PFL fine, but can't pull a circuit breaker and do a power-on landing without stuffing the approach up (bad field, downwind, too fast, too much R.O.D.) etc.

Let's try to make training a bit more 'realistic' eh?

Also, I see a lot of PPL holders who still ask instructors to make decisions for them ("what do you think, is the weather ok?"). It's fine to take advice from instructors, but students really should be taught some decision making skills.

[jeepys]

Plenty of high time instructors have bent machines namely 22's doing EOL's. My own opinion is that the entry and descent is as important if not more than the touchdown. If you f*** up the entry in a 22 then forget the termination, however, if the entry and descent are good then provided you pull some sort of flare at the bottom you should be okay. You may have a heavy one or roll it over but you stand a very good chance of surviving.
I am not saying EOL's should not be practised but I like to broaden the horizon a bit and develop skills in all the areas. As an experienced instructor I have heard the answer "enter autorotation" to many questions posed to a student of what they would do if this happened or that happened. We all know that doing an auto to land is the last resort (after training) but from many students answers they would do an auto if a chip light came on.
How embarrasing would it be to f*** up an auto after having a chip light when you could have landed with the engine?
But that's my opinion. I am sure some R22 instructor who wears a helmet and plays top gun in his car will shoot me down.

[Backward Blade]

Auto's must be practiced from top to bottom. Granted it doesn't happen much statistically (spelled right) but when it does EVERY aspect of the auto is important right from entry, yaw stabilization, rpm good?... yes... find a spot...turn, adjust, turn etc. You can do all those correctly and find yourself over your spot but at 400 ft with no airspeed to generate RPM. Or be at your spot but with too much airspeed and end over end with all the requisite consequences. There are adjustments at the bottom that CAN be done, SHOULD be demonstrated. It is only in this way that the student can understand the repercussions for doing otherwise. eg You enter a perfect auto into an otherwise 10 kt wind with the idea of planting it on the numbers. At the bottom the wind gives out losing you 10 kts of energy. The instuctor takes adds assistance as needed and you the student find yourself skidding along the runway a little farther than usual. You ask "why?"...instructor explains...and you go "OH MY"!

I understand completely the desire to refrain from full-on auto's based on the idea of insurance, cost, damage to reputation etc. Especially if you are a private guy. But just think about the consequences if and when it happens and you're not current. The fact is the 22 is a cannonball in an auto but it is indeed a fact that you are indeed flying it. Learn it! Yes I
trained one.

I am also not an instructor. But in my initial and my annual recurrency I do ALOT of entries. I fly at least 10 right to the ground not including Hovers. As for the surprise, we NEVER chop, but enter gently...you are looking for a response after all from the student.

All training should be done with the idea of opening the students eyes to the possibility of something going wrong whether it be a chip lite, LTA, or engine failure. And every one of them should be demonstrated, discussed and eventually surprised...all to the ground...if the instructor deems the conditions suitable. Power Recoveries in the bush all the time though.

I've flown an A-Star for the last 3 yrs and have NEVER done a power recovery. My instructor expects me to land every one. And he's a third party trainer.

That saved my life last year at 300 ft with a longline. I was back to work in 5 hours with the same machine.

You are flying a helicopter ladies and gentleman and unlike a car you can't just pull over to the side of the road when things go wrong, or you run out of gas. It is sophisticated yet still made by humans. If you choose to fly at least give yourself the benefit of understanding how many ways it can go wrong. And that is what training is for. Risk...definately. But then you wouldn't want to fly one so much then would you.

Backwards

[Helinut]

I haven't done any ab-initio (or indeed single engine) instruction for a number of years. However, it used to be the case that in the UK it was a requirement of the syllabus for the PPL(H) that EOLs were included, and certainly for the CPL(H).

Has this changed?

If not, then surely the instructor should follow the syllabus and the examiner flight test according to it.

If you want the rules to change, then people should lobby for such a change.

[Tailboom]

I'm from South Wales and I teach students to go all the way to the ground, it absolutely amazes me pplh's who have a licence and havn't been down to the ground in a full needle split engine at idle touch down they are always amazed !!! whether it be in a R22, R44 or what ever.

I had an engine stop in a 206 last year at 1500ft with 5 of us on board and succesfully carried out an eol at 40 knts to a runway with no dramas.

I definatley think all students should be at least shown what happens when you touch down with the engine at idle.

From my point of view I "warm up" to this event first namely by carrying out a number of run on landings to the area I intend to use, this verifies that the grass or what ever, is suitable then a number of throttle chops in the hover and finally engine failures in a hover taxi, all this before an actual engine off .

Most of the people I've flown with think they have been to the ground but when you question them after the event nearly all of them admit the instructor did'nt quite split the needles and did a semi power recovery run on landing !!!

[SASless]

Funny thing....real engine off landings are no where near the same as the ones done during practice.

Engine at idle just isn't the same as riding a dead donk to the ground without first having surveyed the landing spot.

[parabellum]

Before I qualified for 'wings' I had to complete solo engine off to the ground, having practised a lot before hand, subsequently it was practised every six months with a QHI. All this paid off in Indonesia in 1968 when I had a full blown engine failure in an AB206A. I would have thought that engine offs to the ground were an essential part of anyone's basic training. And yes, the real thing does sound very different to a practise.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

Engine at idle just isn't the same as riding a dead donk

On one small aspect of that, I've always wondered whether the turbine at idle contributes any significant power to uping rrpm? Anyone got any figures?

[topendtorque]

I've always wondered whether the turbine at idle contributes any significant power to uping rrpm


If the needles are joined, there will be power being transmitted. It's how I nearly got caught doing a real one early on. As a result, nowadays I never allow anyone to continue on looking at their intended landing spot in an auto descent if they are doing a power recovery and have joined the needles, as the projected landing spot will be further out than for when there is silence.


real engine off landings are no where near the same as the ones done during practice

Part of the old standard patter that pertains to RRPM, as follows;

collective full down , check,
safe to reach an area, check,
throttle in idle cut off, check, (as with sleight of hand the mags go off),
quiet eh?
Did you just notice, no hydraulics? dumbo.
well, be positive, but don't over control, damm it.
now listen carefully to the sound of the blades,
let's slow them down, hear that?
Now let's speed them up, see that corolois effect, only used five knots to rescue it, magic eh?
now you do it, easy eh?
did you just notice that your RRPM tacho is U/S, dumbo,
then r-e-m-e- m-b-e-r this sound, or you die.
ah, just reminded me of a joke.
tet

[Paul Cantrell]

Sorry, I'm catching up on this thread, so I'm quoting from several postings:

I'm afraid I'm a lot less sanguine than you about pilots' ability to get into autorotation after a sudden and complete engine failure in an R22.
In the case of a partial or gradual engine failure I'm sure there would be few problems, but where something like carb icing turns the engine off like a light, especially in the climb, I'm simply not convinced that the average person's recognition processes/reaction time are up to the job.


This is one reason I think it is a good idea to perform a *lot* of throttle chops with a student. You don't want the pilot to be having to think "oh, what's going on, OMG it's an engine failure, now what is it I have to do again?". You want the reaction to be instinctive - between the yaw, and the change in engine/rotor noise, the left arm should just immediately go down. The thought process should almost be "hmm, I'm autorotating... I must have had an engine failure!".

tabdy: I think I will continue to avoid the R22! (wrt autos)
There is another side to doing autos in the R22: when I went to Bell school years ago, after the first throttle chop and landing, the Bell instructor looks at me kind of funny and asks me: are you an R22 pilot? I thought he was going to disrespect the aircraft, but when I said "yes" his response: "Yeah, I thought so. R22 pilots do the BEST autos". :-)

puntosaurus: I had an ex Navy instructor in the early nineties who was nuts about autos to the ground, and his enthusiasm eventually rubbed off on me. About four years after I qualified he had his sixth genuine engine problem (first since the navy) in an R22 on a recovery from practise auto away from the field. Because it wasn't the nice smooth grass of the airfield, he tipped it over on landing, wrecked the machine but walked away with his student. The point there is that I would have backed him over anyone to land intact, but even he couldn't do it on a less than perfect surface.


Of the people I know: 3 carb ice engine failures at the school when I was learning (before Robinson figured out about the carb temp gauge). My instructor landed on the paved runway, no problem. Another instructor landed off airport, no problem. A third instructor landed no problem, but I never heard whether that was off airport or to the pavement. My instructor on the CPL had an engine failure in an R22 and landed off airport: she tipped it over. The guy who owned the school I learned at had an engine failure at 300 feet and landed off airport, no problem. A local pilot with a lower bearing failure a couple years back bent the machine. Personally, I think it's a bit of luck: lots of fields that look great from 1,000 feet turn out to be so steep you wouldn't land on them power on, let alone power off.

manfromuncle: As an experienced instructor, I will not do EOLs to the ground in an R22, sure, I can do them, but it's just too easy to bend up the aircraft, get the sack, get a reputation etc. I will do them in the Schweizer with a student, because it's a much more forgiving aircraft for it.


I think some of this is how often you are doing them in make/model. When I'm teaching almost every day in the R22, I have no doubts about my abilities. However, when I go through slow periods, or periods where most of my time is in other make/model, I find my skills in the R22 erode pretty quickly, and I get more conservative.

My favorite aircraft to teach autos in was the Enstrom. Lots and lots of inertia. The R44 and the B206 are both pretty forgiving as well, but the Enstrom is a TANK!. I only have a little time in the Schweizer and didn't think it was *that* much easier than the R22, but then I have a lot more hours in the Robby.

Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare, you're much more likely to get some sort of malfunction/chip light/partial power loss, than a full-blown engine failure.

Well, they aren't *that* rare. I know quite a few helicopter pilots who have had them, I've had one in an airplane, and then there are all the other failures that have the same result: we had a local pilot lose the lower bearing in an R22 a couple years back, I've had a sprag clutch malfunction that required a full down; it happens, even in turbine helicopters.

manfromuncle:Frank Robinson said on the safety course that, at one point, so many people were crashing R22s during practice autos that he seriously wanted to ban people from doing autos in them!


You have to realize that Frank believes in his heart that his helicopter can do no wrong. It is pretty depressing to read the accident reports and see the same accident over and over, but I don't personally think that means you should limit teaching autos/EOLs, it just means you have to find ways to avoid those sorts of accidents. Here in the USA where most of the training is being conducted by relatively inexperienced instructors, it's not surprising that there are a lot of training accidents. You also have to look at the aircraft being used for training: The R22 is not impossible to land EOL, but it certainly is a lot harder than many of the other helicopters. I've always wished for a high inertia version of the R22 for training. I've done a fair amount of training in the Enstrom and the R44 and it is certainly much easier to teach autos in those types, and also lets you as the instructor roll the throttle off in many more situations. I won't roll the throttle off on an R22 student in a 5 foot hover: there's too little energy if he does the wrong thing. In the Enstrom I used to roll it off in pretty much any flight regime because there was plenty of energy for the student to mess up and me to still fix it. Having the oleos helped too ;-)

[Paul Cantrell]

I've always wondered whether the turbine at idle contributes any significant power to uping rrpm
If the needles are joined, there will be power being transmitted. It's how I nearly got caught doing a real one early on. As a result, nowadays I never allow anyone to continue on looking at their intended landing spot in an auto descent if they are doing a power recovery and have joined the needles, as the projected landing spot will be further out than for when there is silence.


You didn't mention whether you are talking about a hover or an inflight scenario. I've mentioned in the past that I thought a lot of turbine pilots get over confident about the ability to do a hover autorotation. A jet engine engineer got in contact with me and said that there are two factors: the fuel control is designed to slowly decrease the fuel flow so that you don't flame the engine out, so in fact when you quickly roll off throttle in the hover, the engine is still developing significant power for most of the hovering autorotation. However, he said that the inertia in the power turbine is substantial and that does help out. So, real life will not be as forgiving because you'll lose the help of the engine.

In a glide, if the needles are split, I don't believe you are getting any help from the engine. Split is split, as far as I know.

[Shawn Coyle]

Paul is right, but I have to add to the discussion.
I did an article about autorotations with the engine at idle not being the same as with the engine stopped. I carefully did not mention any types, as I wasn't sure this was applicable to all.
A large helicopter manufacturer in Texas took exception to the article, and went and proved there was no measurable difference in the performance or handling with the engine at idle or off. This was pretty gutsy, but they now do an annual engine really failed autorotation with each of their instructors.
So while the contribution of the engine at idle may be there on some helcopters, it's not there on all of them!

[ReverseFlight]

Paul, I agree that as a turbine takes time to spool down, there is a lot of assistance in simulated engine failures. But some machines with high intertia blades are very forgiving.

I remember doing a practice auto in a B206 and to our surprise the needle was barely touching bottom of the green even with collective full down. It was intended to be a hover recovery but my instructor was so absorbed by the phenomenon I ended up doing a full touchdown anyway. We later found out that the pitch links were actually off and had to be re-adjusted by the engineers.

Another instructor once demonstrated a practice auto in a B47G (piston). He took off vertically to 200 ft, then rolled throttle off and let the chopper drop vertically all the way until perhaps 20 ft AGL when he pitched collective, and the descent of the machine suddenly slowed down, as if a lift (or elevator) is just arriving at the chosen floor. The rest is continuing to cushion the touchdown with collective and landing at the very point we took off. Shows how much intertia there is in the ol' girl's blades - amazing stuff.

[RVDT]

If you are doing them in a Bell 47, do them with the hydraulics OFF. All models except those with a 900 Series MGB (3B2's?) have the hydraulic pump driven by the engine.

In the old days it was Engine OFF, Hydraulics OFF, Rotor Tach covered, ears tuned and eyeballs like dinner plates. :eek: