Cyclic climb after entering autorotation [Archive]

nulian

11th Aug 2003, 11:06

Hi folks -
Just read Hugh Mills' "Low Level Hell", in which he describes his first tour in Vietnam flying OH6As.

At one point he describes an engine failure due to gunfire while he was "about forty feet off the ground and doing maybe fifty knots".

His reaction to this situation was: "I dumped collective... pulled the cyclic back.. and managed to cyclic climb to about 150 feet. With that extra altitude, I was able to enter autorotation..."

He managed to land the helicopter - hard, and damaging the skids, but otherwise without incident.

I'm curious what people think of this maneuver. From my own meager experience with the R22, doing something like that would put you dangerously slow and with decaying rotor RPM as you started to drop back down. Of course - the R22 isn't an OH6, and obviously the maneuver worked for Mills, but I'm still curious.

John Bicker

11th Aug 2003, 13:41

Do NOT try this at home. The OH6A or H500 is a very capable aircraft. It does have a very wide flight envelope and benefits from being very clean aerodynamically. It is possible for instance to roll off the power at cruise from about 10' off the ground perform a cyclic climb, turn left at the top, and continue turning through 360 degrees and land, engine off. I have demonstrated autorotations where at the lower RRPM limits and higher airspeed, you can fly the rest of a circuit from 1000' downwind, including all the square corners that would put some fixed wings to shame. The OH6/500 with all the doors removed is still cleaner than a clean B206. Also a lean OH6/500 is not much heavier empty than a 300C. It does also benefit in being a little more crashworthy than others of a similar generation - up to a point.

I wouldn't be surprised if the manouvre you describe was feasible, although it would be difficult too demonstrate without breaking something.

A power ON cyclic climb from 50 knots in a H500 produces a lot more performance than you would expect.

Vfrpilotpb

11th Aug 2003, 15:53

Nulian,

Try this in any R22, and sadly we will be reading about you,:{

nulian

11th Aug 2003, 18:06

Heh.

Don't worry, as I stated in my post I didn't think this would be terribly feasible in an R22. I was mainly wondering if such a maneuver was possible in the OH6, or if it was a case of a less-than-accurate memory on Mills' part.

I still can't imagine how you'd manage to autorotate successfully from 150 feet and > 30kts airspeed.

NickLappos

11th Aug 2003, 18:32

I used to teach such a maneuver in the Cobra, it is doable and quite handy when in low level, high speed flight.

Mills is slightly off in two places:

1) where he says "I dumped collective... pulled the cyclic back.. and managed to cyclic climb to about 150 feet. With that extra altitude, I was able to enter autorotation..."

He was in autorotation when he started the cyclic flare, but with a combination of forward speed and rotor inertia, he was able to climb while in autorotation, and find a better place to touchdown.

2) where he estimates that he was at "about forty feet off the ground and doing maybe fifty knots".

The energy at 50 knots is paltry, and there is no kinetic energy to fuel such a climb. Were he at 130, the climb would be normal and nice, at 50, he wouldn't get more than a few feet up. The climb can be calculated easily, as the energy in his machine is 1/2MV squared (M is mass, V is speed), and the energy needed to climb is MGH (G is the gravitational constant, H is height). In a cyclic climb, the two must be equal (if the climb extracts all the energy, and you have zero knots at the top). For 130 knots, you get 750 feet higher, for 50 knots you get 110 feet higher. At zero, you can't autorotate, so you should calculate the climb with a residual speed of 40 knots for an OH-6.

At 130 knots, topping the climb at 60 knots allows you to climb almost 600 feet. At 50 knots, topping the climb at 40 knots allows you to climb about 40 feet.

Mills was wrong, or at least his memory was, but not by that much.

He was probably between 65 and 70 knots knots when he started the climb, and if he rounded out at 40 knots, he would have climbed about 150 feet.

CJ Eliassen

11th Aug 2003, 21:46

I demonstrate to students in an R-22 that if you come in at 80 knots in an auto, when you perform a cyclic flare, you can actually climb up about 50 feet with ease and your airspeed drops to around 60 knots.

CaptainEagle

11th Aug 2003, 22:23

The 44 is capable of climbing during autorotation but not by much. I've tried doing a few times while praticising autos on my own and as long as you enter the climb with some decent speed it will climb a little, although it is more an 'inflated flare' than it is a climb and it certainly doesn't climb more than 50 ft.

I can't see the use of the process outside of combat, except of course if you saw a fence at the last minute but chances are your airspeed would be too low at that stage.

What do ya'll think? Any use for it?

spinningwings

12th Aug 2003, 13:39

Welllllll,..... I actually got tought that technique by my instructor back when I did my Hu500 transition ....he was one of them Ex US Army Fort Wolters/ Mineral Wells IP guys and I gotta tell u IT WORKS .....its the old Airspeed for Height trade and you don't need to be at 50' agl to use it ....done well it means U can get into Autorotation without losing much height at all AND/OR U can use the technique to recover Nr if things have turned out a bit wrong!!! ....but U better have your wits about you when U do it!

:cool: :eek:

autosync

12th Aug 2003, 14:00

You would be neglagent and quite simply dumb to try this, trying to trade a lot of speed for a bit of height at low level? There is a good chance your engine will fail when practicing Autos, then how do you plan to get your speed back?

Not reccomended practice for Commercial Aviation, and practicing in 22' and 44's, Its Cowboys like this that Increase the Insurance for all of us.

Rich Lee

12th Aug 2003, 14:24

The memory of Hugh Mills has no doubt been subjected to the unpredictable influence of what Kurt Vonnegut once called the "cronosynclastic infidibulum". Any attempt to unravel Mr. Mills' experience would encounter certain time distorted memory effects that tend to frustrate normal expectations of temporal linearity and sound phsyics.

Should one neglect high humidity, gross weight, drag (open doors, guns, etc.), pilot reaction time and the like; Mr. Lappos is not far off the mark with his estimate of the height achievable in an OH-6A after an engine failure from 40 feet and 50 knots.

In my opinion, at 40 feet and 50 knots a reduction of collective and straight line deceleration would prove more for more efficient at conserving rotor RPM for pitch-pull, present less time in the sights of enemy weapons, and require significantly less pilot workload to perform.

It would however make rather dull reading.

CaptainEagle

12th Aug 2003, 18:01

Autosync, who said I attempted the climb at low-level?

Thanks for that info about engines failing during autorotation, because obviously there is no way I would have already known that! I attempted the collective climb while in autorotation with hard deck of 1000 ft AGL. So if the engine failed I had lots of time to recover, thank you for your concern none the less.

My point is merely that student should perhaps be shown this to be used as an absolute last resort to avoid a fence or a wall if autorotating for real. Surely it's better to lose a bit of speed close to the ground if it means you won't hit something.

NickLappos

12th Aug 2003, 18:42

Rich,
A cyclic climb from 50 knots in autorotation would only lead to a dull thud.

CJ Eliassen

12th Aug 2003, 19:54

Captain Eagle,

I agree. I teach the manuever to show students that should they have to auto to a parking lot, field, etc and a car, fence etc should be in front of them, with sufficient airspeed, they can autorotate over the top.

Autosync,

Simply because you do not possess the experience to perform a manuever does not mean that someone who does is a cowboy. Those who fail to remain educated and expand their experiences are the ones most likely to raise insurance rates. If you live in a box and something happens that forces you outside that box, you are going to have trouble coping.

the coyote

12th Aug 2003, 22:19

Food for thought:

If you enter a climb by flaring in autorotation then the aircraft will have some amount of inertia carrying it away from the force of gravity. While in the "flare" effect there is the required airflow through the disc from beneath producing an autorotative force and driving the rotor. Should you then apply forward cyclic to maintain some acceptable airspeed (which you need to complete the autorotation) you have to wait until the aircraft stops climbing from this inertia and commences a descent before you can re-establish autorotation. In addition, the application of forward cyclic will unload the rotor disc and your RRPM will reduce from coriolis effect. The net result being a potentially significant loss of RRPM, close to the ground, which in my opinion defeats any logic of doing the manouvre in the first place.

autosync

12th Aug 2003, 22:26

Captain Eagle, CJ Eliassen.

Are you just trying play up there with the big guns?
These guys are test pilots at the top of there game, CE you told us yourself you are 19 and now I am wondering if you are even that?
Play away all you want, just means there will be less competition for work.

I always think that the most dangerous Pilots out there are the ones with the shiny new Licences who think they are ready to take on the world.

nulian

12th Aug 2003, 23:09

Let's try to keep this civil.

coyote - yes, that effect was in the forefront of my mind when I read about this maneuver. Nick et al - is this a significant factor?

CJ Eliassen

12th Aug 2003, 23:10

Coyote,

Its all about energy management. If you don't feel comfortable doing such a manuever, then I highly recommend you don't attempt it without first receiving instruction from a competent instructor. Its better to learn the limitations of your aircraft in a controlled environment then become a test pilot by trying something in the heat of an emergency.

Autosync,

Don't get so defensive and don't assume you know someones experience level because they have the confidence to perform manuevers you were never taught. Also, I know shiney new certificate holders that have more confidence, ability, and knowledge then many "big dogs". Just because you are unwilling to learn new things doesn't make those new things bad, wrong, or unsafe. In my experience, those who assume they already know everything and stop learning are the most dangerous pilots. You might want to give this some thought.

Rich Lee

13th Aug 2003, 00:27

Nick wrote: "A cyclic climb from 50 knots in autorotation would only lead to a dull thud."

Agreed. Isn't that what happened? It is doubtful that an autorotative state or equilibrium preserving sufficient main rotor RPM for a 'non-damage landing' could have been obtained if the maneuver were performed as written.

Inspection of the main rotor blades after the "thud" data point would have probably revealed little main rotor in-plane rotational damage as there would not have been significant rotational energy remaining in the system. This would have validated your hypothesis.

Unfortunately, the residual coning angle set to the main rotor blades would probably have rendered the blades less than airworthy and re-use on an aircraft in the next chapter would have been contraindicated.

I have come to conclude that the best responses to an emergency are simple. I am always amazed at the length of pilot reaction and recognition time following a non-training emergency. In the case of an engine failure (for whatever cause) delayed response consumes energy and a procedure or method used in training can become unrealistic or unreasonable in an actual emergency. Instructors should always carefully consider the ability and knowledge of a student before the introduction of advanced autorotational techniques. Continuous forced landing area evalution during flight, techniques to anticipate problems, problem recognition skills and response methods are far more valuable than advance autorotational techniques.

Few experienced helicopter pilots will advocate low speed, low level pop-ups as a realistic engine failure response. Where a forced landing area can be identified a straight line deceleration is the appropriate technique. Flying over a jungle where the nearest forced landing area was probably the biggest tree, a pop-up 'might' allow a pilot to see an appropriate landing area that might not otherwise be seen. There is a compromise in all autorotative techniques. A pop-up provides visibility at the expense of maneuver complexity.

High speed, low level pop-ups and/or level deceleration techniques are a valid skill set for military pilots who may be required to operate in that environment. It is hard to justify this training to pilots who have no compelling reason to expose themselves to the risk of either low or high speed low level flight. My first question to pilots who request this type of training from me is "What are the compelling operational requirements that require you to learn this maneuver?". When such a requirement exists serious consideration should be given to ammending the way the operational requirement so as to reduce the risk.

CJ Eliassen

13th Aug 2003, 01:24

Rich Lee Wrote "High speed, low level pop-ups and/or level deceleration techniques are a valid skill set for military pilots who may be required to operate in that environment. It is hard to justify this training to pilots who have no compelling reason to expose themselves to the risk of either low or high speed low level flight."

Cars, wires, fences, walls, poles, people, animals, bushes, trees, rivers, terrain, etc etc.. All of these are reason to know the performance limitations of your helicopter. Or do you suggest that a pilot just run into something and destroy the helicopter and cause potential injury to themselves when a safe landing could be performed with a cyclic climb? Maybe where you live all the ground is flat and there is always a nice flat open field available, but here the ground is rarely flat. Should a pilot have to land uphill, a cyclic climb is required to match the climbing terrain and prevent the thud of which you speak.

I do many things that other pilots consider unsafe because I know things they do not. For example, I hover at 15 feet in an R-22. #1, I have been taught successful hovering autos from this height, and #2, over 90 helicopters have been destroyed by dynamic rollover and none have been damaged from an engine failure in a hover.

So just because you think its unsafe and you are unwilling to learn something new, does not make it unsafe. I wouldn't attempt a no flare auto, but that doesn't mean I think it is unsafe. I simply wouldn't feel comfortable performing the manuever without a great deal of instruction.

Regards,

C.J.

Rich Lee

13th Aug 2003, 03:13

CJ,

You hover 15 feet in an R-22? If I have learned one thing in life it is that spinal injury can cause you to lose all feeling in your penis. That is an unacceptable risk to me.

I do not think it terms of safe and unsafe. I think in terms of risk benefit. I do not hover high in an R-22 because the risk of paralysis to me does not justify a reduction in dynamic rollover risk. Perhaps this is my background. In over 34 years of flying I have had six non-test related engine failures in various aircraft but not one dynamic rollover accident.

I am one of the people who define and validate the height velocity curve and have done so on many helicopters. I have personaly performed over 10,000 touchdown autorotations both with and intentionaly without engine in various civil and military training scenarios. I cannot think of an autorotation technique I have not evaluated or performed or taught. Flare, no flare, pitch pull, no pitch pull, zero speed, high speed, straight-in, high rotor, low rotor, min descent, max glide, 180, 360 and multiples.

My opinion about risk is not predicated on a data set of 1 location. There are many flat areas here in Arizona. Some suitable for landing, others not. There are also mountains and one of the largest canyons in the world. We even have cars, wires, fences, walls, poles, people, animals, bushes, trees, rivers, terrain, etc here. I have flown over a few and with the exception of take-off and landing, I try to do so at a minimum risk altitude. There are few places or types of terrain in the world where I have not flown helicopters.

I do not suggest that pilots run into things and am surprised you would draw that conclusion from my opinions. I suggest that they fly at a height and speed and over a path where extraordinary skill or knowledge will not be required to land in the event of a power failure.

Please note that the term "unsafe" is yours, not mine. I said it is difficult to justify the risk. I have spent my whole life learning how to fly helicopters and I continue to learn so I do not understand why you suggest I am unwilling to learn. I even learn how to do "unsafe" things, but I have also learned when the benefit justifies the risk. Helicopter flying is like that.

Your reasoning seems flawed to me in that you accept risk that I will not; but we all define risk individually. However when I read that you do things other pilots consider unsafe you remind me of the soldier on the parade field who complained because he was the only one marching in time to the drum.

Intelligence is the flower of discrimination. There are many examples of the flower blooming but not bearing fruit.

Hingeless Rotor

13th Aug 2003, 07:45

Rich,

After reading the reply above, I will go back and study the death snail with a renewed interest. The points you make above have considerable relevance to the discussion…..as I am sure, in hindsight, the death snail did too.

I too would like to sow my ‘flower’ seeds with a useable penis. Risk assessment is the way we can guarantee a good crop. Hopefully others will be able to nibble on my fruits (bountiful as of course they are)

CJ,

I must admit that I am interested to hear what you gain by hovering at 15 feet? As I understand it, the original hover height for the R22 was increased due to potential ground contact in the training environment when students got the inevitable wobbles learning to hover. Can we assume you can now hover? ;)

You will also probably find that 90% if not more (my numbers) of the dynamic rollover accidents occurred at lift off as apposed to hover taxiing. Not saying it doesn’t happen, just that the risks of catching a skid are far greater while still on the ground………and not at double the Robinson recommended hover height or below.

Stand your ground CJ, you have probably heard this all before…………:hmm:

CaptainEagle

13th Aug 2003, 20:05

Autosync,
Yes I'm 19. Like that makes any difference anyway. You don't have to be a test pilot to have an opinion on something like this. I wouldn't sit down with Nick Lappos and discuss the merits of different angles of blade twist because I know nothing about it.

The reason I replied to this post was because having tried a similar maneuver I believe I have an opinion which might be worth adding to the discussion that is taking place here. Just because I'm 19 doesn't mean I can't fly. If you want to discuss this matter then do so, if you want to criticise me, send me a PM. Leave the board to what it's for - discussing aviation.

===

Although I think the technique might have some use, I can see the downfall of teaching a student how to do it. No matter how much you stress that it is only a last resort, someone who is not continually practising auto's may be at their mental capacity coping with an emergency. For them to try and complete a climb in the auto to miss a fence might be a bit of an overload for the average PPL. My instructor used to always say the two things I had to remember in an auto were "Rotor RPM and make your spot". It might be a better idea to teach students to really really pick the best landing site they can if the noise stops.

PPRUNE FAN#1

13th Aug 2003, 23:02

Oh man! What have I been missing here!

Rich Lee wrote:Few experienced helicopter pilots will advocate low speed, low level pop-ups as a realistic engine failure response...Few...as in "none?" At low speed, trying to "pop-up" will only result in a loss of both your RRPM and what little airspeed you already had. Bad idea in a high-inertia system like a B206. Horrid idea in anything else. I can't imagine any scenario in which being at 100-150 feet with no airspeed and no rotor rpm would be preferable to just flaring and cushioning the landing with all of the available pitch. But that's just me. Because even if you do "pop-up" to 150 feet and see a good site, you're not going to be able to drive to it; you're pretty much going to fall straight down from that point.

Then, this genius CJ Eliassen remarks:I do many things that other pilots consider unsafe because I know things they do not. For example, I hover at 15 feet in an R-22. #1, I have been taught successful hovering autos from this height, and #2, over 90 helicopters have been destroyed by dynamic rollover and none have been damaged from an engine failure in a hover. Sir, perhaps that is because those engine failures occurred whilst the Robbo was at a proper hover-height? If so, you'd likely never read about them...like we'll read about yours. But you go, boy! Don't let anyone tell *you* that something you do is unsafe. Fark 'em!

Hovering an R-22 at 15 feet is daft. But hey, you're the expert! Personally, if I were you, I'd work on my hovering skills so that I wouldn't have this irrational fear of dynamic rollover. Oh...umm, remind me not to send my kids up on a sightseeing flight with you, 'k?

Finally, a 19 year-old boy, "Captain" Eagle telling us that he's been out playing with himself...oh sorry, "by" himself in an R-44.

Wow. Sure got a nice bunch o' test pilots here. Glad I'm just an old-timer who just goes by the numbers and procedures in the AFM...you know, the ones derived by real test pilots. Maybe that's how I've survived 10,000+ hours with my penis (mostly) intact.

CJ Eliassen

14th Aug 2003, 00:02

So much for the PROFESSIONAL pilot network. I guess you guess already know everything already.

Rich,

You must have a weak spine to be hurt from a hovering auto at 15 feet. Heck, I can jump from that height without injury. And if a hovering auto can be successfully done from 15 feet, whats the risk?

Hingeless,

Most dynamic roll over accidents occur with students learning to hover.

Prune Fan,

Can you try and show some intelligence?

Rich Lee

14th Aug 2003, 04:43

All

I love this thread! What daring, what outrageousness, what innocense, what outright arrogance!

CJ

"You must have a weak spine to be hurt from a hovering auto at 15 feet."

Although I do not have a "super spine", my spine has served me well all these years. I have no aches, pains, or injuries after many years of flying and high altitude mountaineering. Given the differance in our age, my spine is probably not as strong, or as supple as yours. Given your "strong spine" perhaps you would not be injured during a practice autorotation from 15 feet. Fail the engine while you hover at 15 feet, add normal pilot reaction time to your response, consider your remaining inertia, and then the risk of injury can no longer be ignored.

You have accepted this risk. You are betting that Textron Lycoming will never let you down. Perhaps you will win that bet. Should the day ever come that you confront a real engine failure, you are betting you will make all the right moves and not freeze like a deer in the headlights. Perhaps you will win that bet also.

My concern is that you are teaching students who may follow your example without a clear understanding of the risk they are assuming. They will believe that engines rarely, if ever, fail in the R-22. They will believe that a practice autorotation is the same as a real autorotation. They will believe that the risk of injury from dynamic rollover is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of an engine failure while hovering at 15 feet. They will believe that their strong, supple young spines cannot be injured.

"Heck, I can jump from that height without injury. And if a hovering auto can be successfully done from 15 feet, whats the risk?"

There is a reason why parachutists land on their feet. We all have weak spines in a sitting position. Part of this derives from the simple fact that after the lower part of your spine stops moving at final impact, the upper part continues in a whiplash motion. Spinal injury can occur just from compression due to the sudden stop.

Ignoring death, spinal chord injury is the greatest occupational threat facing a professional helicopter pilot. I hope that neither you nor your any of your students will have to live life in a wheel chair, unable to change your own colostimy bag because of an actual engine failure at 15 feet.

Charlie S. Charlie-Excellent insight sir!

PPrune Fan #1 "Few...as in "none?"

I did not want to misrepresent the opinion of the "entire" industry. Who knows, there might be one...somewhere..hey, it could happen...right?

Captain Eagle

Given your last response, I salute your wisdom. Your age is not relevant to the discussion.

Hingeless Rotor

May you sow your seed with wild abandon for an eternity. I have very little cream remaining in my twinky, but I remain very fond of it nonetheless. Ah, the Death Snail! Always relevant to any discussion in general and this in particular!

While I await the response of CJ, I think of Psalm 22 (King James Translation-forgive me if my recollection of the passage is in error):

At 15 in a Robbie
my engine doeth fail
I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint:
my heart is like wax;
it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
My strength is dried up like a potsherd;
and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws;
and thou hast brought me to the dust of death.

I have heard that every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats and like S.A. Robinson's Miniver Cheevy, I do so miss the medieval grace of iron clothing. But hover at 15 feet in a Robbie?
In closing, I hope that you will always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn

Thomas coupling

14th Aug 2003, 07:27

Standard UK mil training.
Trading speed off for height, but of course you have to be the fast side of 100+ kts to make it worth while.
I recall training studes to fly at 50/100' and about 100-120kts, chop the throttle, dump the lever and flare, flare, flare:uhoh:
The aim was to try to make a slot on the touchdown zone.

Fantastic feedback, probably the instructors dream sortie.

Mind you Gazelle's were very accomodating, wouldn't want to try it in a teetering head!

Jcooper

14th Aug 2003, 08:09

I just want to know who had the raisens to teach you a 15' hover auto in a R22. Being with students in a 2' hover (for practice hover autos) ive had troubles before getting the helicopter nice and level and a good pull that it felt good. At 3' they would be much rougher but the 22 could probably take it. At 5 feet you just spread the skids. At 10 feet you are going to the hospital if for nothing else than to get the chunk of seat that your ass just ate out. At 15 feet your penis no longer salutes the hot chicks admiring your speed demon wheel chair.

Stay at 3' and just look where you are going. To teach hovering, find a better place that is nice and open and clean and stay at 3'.

Side note- Why ignore the HV curve that guys like Rich and Nick bust their ass to make? Sorry if any of the other members are test pilots and I left them off, I for one appreciate you doing much of the dirty work for the helicopters I fly.

helmet fire

14th Aug 2003, 09:57

Fantastic thread!:} :}

Rich, perhaps CJ might be female and all your arguements for penis preservation are lost on the super-spined one! I think we all know what the last thing to pass through CJ's mind will be after an engine failure in the hover!!

TC: the pop up in auto can easily be taught and performed in teetering head helicopters as any agressive push overs would result in very decayed RRPM quite apart from the danger of mast bump and rotor separation. But you have voiced the whole crux of the discussion - entry speed. Quite a safe manouevre (if a little hard to justify for the majority of flying roles) when performed with high entry speed, but akin to kissing your arse, legs, and your penis (where applicable) goodbye from low entry speeds.

:ok:

the coyote

14th Aug 2003, 13:04

CJ,

In response to your earlier post, and without blowing my own trumpet, I consider myself to be a competent flight instructor. I had a look through my logbook and realistically estimate I have done a couple of thousand autos with students in all kinds of configurations, 90% of those power off to the ground. I don't consider myself by any means a guru, however I do feel I have a handle on them. I treat every one with respect.

You talk about doing an auto to a up sloping hill and needing a cyclic climb for the touchdown. I disagree entirely. If you are landing on anything other than a firm smooth and level surface, surely you would opt for a zero speed touchdown and not try to run it on? Better to land harder and keep it upright (for which they are designed) rather than risk rolling over and have a rotor blade come through the cabin, yes? If you are zero speed you don't need to be CLIMBING when you touchdown. If you are zero speed it makes no difference whether the ground is flat or sloping any which way when you touch down. And according to YOUR hover theory you should be able to do that from 15' without damaging the R22 anyway!

By teaching STUDENT pilots advanced and radical manouvres with little or no room for error is counter productive and potentially dangerous in my mind. You are teaching a toddler to run before it can walk. Inexperience and poor command decision making are far more likely to kill a junior pilot than mechanical failure. Risk versus gain and it seems to me you are greatly increasing risk in the training environment for very little gain, considering the statistically very rare predicament that you are trying to train them for. They are more likely going to walk away from these lessons with you with a dangerous seed planted in their minds ("jeez you can do anything in auto") AND WITHOUT the skills to pull them off. YOU might be able to do it but can they? What have you really achieved as an instructor then?

In my opinion, from the way you post, you portray yourself to be an instructor that is right in the middle of that cocky I can do anything stage (I guess after about a thousand hours of instructing). If you haven't had a really good scare yet then I strongly suspect from your attitude it is just a question of when, as you push that envelope further and further.

I also strongly suspect that you don't own the machines you fly, and your wallet isn't on the line if you bend one. If I am wrong then good luck, because in my opinion you will need it.

Barannfin

14th Aug 2003, 13:50

I wanna know what 22 he is flying that he can sustain a 15ft hover. Durin' these nice warm summer days I can't manage anything more than 1ft, watch those limits buddy ;)

CaptainEagle

14th Aug 2003, 17:35

For the last time anyone here who has a problem with my age will have to talk to their shrink about being pissed off that a 19 year old has achieved a lot while still very young. I'm not being egotistic but it seems that that is your problem.

To Autosync and Pprune fan, the two pilots on this professional pilots network who are acting very unprofessionally, my age has absolutely nothing to do with my skill level or my capabilities. Get over it. I will no longer respond to any more criticism from the 2 of you, until such time as you can act your age (which is probably a lot higher than mine, which is perhaps what your problem really is).

=====

Have to lend support to not hovering at 15 feet in a 22. Also, I would imagine doing hover autos from that height bends the crosstube at the back of the skid because of the fairly hard touch downs that would inevitably occur. I doubt the owner of the machine would be too happy about that.

I've nothing more to contribute on the matter of cyclic climbs and I fear this thread will descend into a slagging match so from now on I'll remain as a spectator. Blue skies lads.

Maximum

14th Aug 2003, 19:10

Wow-what a classic thread - the old adage it seems was just made for CJ......you know the one CJ, about no bold + old pilots?

CJ

As an experienced plank-driver but not so experienced helicopter- flyer, even I know that to hover at 15 feet as you suggest is to play russian roulette with one's future as a biped complete with dangly bits. As an experiment, why don't you try looking down from 15 feet up a ladder, then contemplate jumping off onto the hard stuff in a sitting position - actually, on second thoughts, don't even climb that ladder - from what you've said you might actually try it with the mistaken belief that it'll just sting a bit.

As a general aside, I'm constantly amazed at the number of R-22's I see being hovered and taxied at heights above about 12 feet. Could it be a developing trend due to increasing pilot numbers and lack of education and awareness? Any thoughts?

CaptainEagle

Although your age certainly has nothing to do with this thread nor in general terms anything to do with your ability, your comments that you have "achieved a lot while still very young" cannot help but raise an eyebrow in those of us straining to remain in sight of the receding shoreline of our youth. If, as you imply, your age has nothing to do with your ability, then what bearing can it possibly have on your "achievement"? I would put it to you bluntly that it has more to do with financial ability than anything else. This is not a criticism of you per se, merely a reflection of why your age will become an issue if you use it as some measure of your "achievement".

CJ Eliassen

14th Aug 2003, 20:07

I was taught to hover 15 feet at the factory, and I am sure they know more then you do. If you lose an engine in an R-22 at 15 and do nothing, you will walk away just fine. Helicopter might not survive, but that is not the major goal in an emergency. Survival without injury is.

I have performed hovering autpos from 15 feet with no damage to the helicopter whatsoever. Why don't you all go to the factory course and ask them to show you a hovering auto from 15 feet. I guess you will be able to show them something because you guys know everything.

JCooper - You don't even know how an engine operates or the effects of air density. And you want to act like a know it all?

I am at 5,500 feet and on these nice warm days the R-22 hovers just fine. Maybe if you don't fly it over gross you might realize its true performance potential.

The Nr Fairy

14th Aug 2003, 21:43

Oops, I seem to have stumbled into rec.aviation.rotorcraft by mistake.

nulian

14th Aug 2003, 21:58

I have to agree that it is possible to succesfully and harmlessly do a hover auto in the R22 from 10 feet - I've had it demonstrated to me by an instructor to show that it could be done.

Note - could be done, not _should_ be done.

CJ - fair enough, you can happily bring an R22 safely down from 15 feet. Whoop-de-doo. Hovering at 3-4 feet should be more than enough if you're teaching a student how to hover and are worried about dynamic rollover.

The old adage - "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" would apply here. I'd like to see you go back to the factory course and ask if they advocate hovering at 15 feet as a matter of course. I'd be very surprised if they said they did.

Thanks to the old fogies for their insight into the original question. Excellent stuff.

autosync

14th Aug 2003, 22:04

Lets hear it for the kid who was able to buy himself a commercial licence, who in his own words
achieved a lot while still very young.

Captain Birdseye relax, its not personal, I dont know you, will probably never meet you this board is anonymous for those including yourself who wish to stay that way.

Good thread folks, keep up the abuse and Pprunefan#1 saying it like it is as always.
(who deep down doesn't agree with him from time to time?)

spinningwings

14th Aug 2003, 22:06

mmmmm interesting thread developments.....

some proverbs come to mind ...

"The pot calling the kettle black"

"a wise man may learn from his mistakes ... a truly wise man will learn from the mistakes of others" ...

"sometimes tis better to remain silent and let others think you a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt!"

;) ;) :ok:

Thomas coupling

14th Aug 2003, 22:41

Can we all get one thing straight here - for starters:

Dynamic rollover requires the helo to be in contact with the ground. You cannot get DR in the hover:*

Secondly, common sense dictates that when engaged in any form of hovering, one should be
(a) high enough so as not to risk clipping the ground inadvertently, and,
(b) low enough so as to get the little beastie back on the deck in one piece should something go wrong (EOL/hyd/TR fail etc).
The optimum height should therefore be around about 5-10 feet (depending on a/c type).

We all know that most of the time, most of us would get away with an engine failure from 10+ feet, but you can GUARANTEE airframe damage from this height if the pilot does nothing to assist with the landing.
Surely, we, as professionals, don't go around thinking "sod the aircraft, I'm OK, Jack"...do we?
As mentioned earlier, just because it's not your helo, doesn't mean to say you won't look after it.
An EOL from 5-10 feet is survivable (airframe and occupants), anything higher is almost certainly going to cost you your undercarriage and or your tail boom and or your job:(

Captain Eagle:

I think you sound and seem very mature from an aviator point of view for your age. BUT be very careful how you employ this tactic...You've got an exponential amount to learn yet and over confidence at this stage will come back to haunt you later..good luck with your vocation. :)

Bronx

14th Aug 2003, 23:02

Wise words for 'Captain' Eagle from Maximum and Thomas coupling.
Hope the kid takes it on board.

CaptainEagle

14th Aug 2003, 23:05

Just couldnt resist replying again, sorry guys, again this has nothing to do with flying but I won't just let criticism go unanswered in a public forum.

Anyone except ex-military pilots bought their commercial unless it was given to them, maybe some did it with ease, maybe some didn't - whatever about age but financial circumstances certainly do not have anything to do with this.

I used the term "achieved a lot for my age" in response to what others have said, I did not start the slagging match here, nor did I post as a first instance.

I do not doubt that anyone could achieve their cpl at my age, or even younger given the resources, I never said that I did doubt that, you guys just presumed that's what I think.

Maximum,
I simply refer to achievement in the fact that the youngest you can apply for a CPL is 18, so I got it very quickly. That is an achievement, of course others can (and probably have) achieved the same thing, I am not denying that.

And finally, many of you seem to insinuating that I think I'm fantasitc and great and deserve praise. This isn't what I think, I never asked for praise, not from anyone. You need to relax, I came on here to discuss aviation matters not to have to sit down and write messages like this time and time again and wonder why I even bother.

And auto, don't say a comment isn't personal when it is aimed at me, maybe you don't know me, but you still made personal remarks. Maybe you should get to know me before making such remarks. If you are the model of a professional pilot then I hope to remain young and in-experienced and everything else you think I am. Your a professional, act like it.

Bronx

14th Aug 2003, 23:29

Yeah well I only said 'hope'. :rolleyes:

CaptainEagle

14th Aug 2003, 23:40

No war with you Bronx. :p

Heliport

15th Aug 2003, 00:44

Enough!

This is Rotorheads, not JustHelicopters.

CaptainEagle
You get the last word this time, but you might want to consider the value of experience as well as the qualification, and think about the kindly advice you've been offered.

Now let's get back to the topic - hope a good discussion hasn't been spoiled. :ok:

Heliport

Rich Lee

15th Aug 2003, 01:36

Thanks Heliport, you are moderating well.

It was either Lu Zuckerman or Isaa Asimov who said "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

Mars

15th Aug 2003, 01:43

Edited

Enough = enough.

Heliport

CaptainEagle

15th Aug 2003, 03:36

So what's the verdict then? Teaching cyclic-climbs to students the wrong thing to do? Given that a lot of training takes place in the 22 (which is probably incapable of completeing such a maneuvre) I think (in my humble, inexperienced opinion) it should be left to the military to teach for use in combat or maybe shown in advanced training courses (perhaps the robbie safety course?).

Eagle.

PS- Thanks Heliport you are doing a great job and your advice (and that of others) is always noted and appreciated. Apologies if I have offended anyone.

t'aint natural

15th Aug 2003, 03:51

CJ Eliassen:
Are you one of those guys who's teaching full-down autos in an R22 in the Mile-High City in the summer?

3top

15th Aug 2003, 13:59

Hi guys,

CJ-E: First I think you are mixing up something with your factory course-15 ft-auto and so. I also got the factory course and I got it from the man who did all the test flying for the R-22. In no way he endorses or recommends a 15 ft hover for primary training! Period.
On more advanced training you might want to practise this for any possible mission, but for regular hover you want to stay between 3-5 ft (the man says...)
If you did the factory safety course you probably saw the video with the R-44 HV-diagram flights. The R-44 was at less than 50 kts, about 50ft, cut throttle, 2 sec reaction delay - he was sitting on the belly, the gear spread out horizontal! The R-44 was single occupant. Forget a no-damage, 15ft no- indicated airspeed auto to a hard surface in a R-22 - I don´t see it. I train people in at least 2000ft DA - in your place even less so.

CaptainEagle:
Recommedation - keep it boring for a long while. Until you have lots and lots of practise autos, quickstops etc.
Maybe it is because I was pretty dumb at your age, but on the other hand I just got it confirmed again:
I gave a 22 year old 150 hr CPLH a crashcourse for tunaboat ops. I thought I got through to him about showing off. For finacial reasons he would not go on a boat with me to do approaches and landings, but would go with a different pilot doing radio tests(so he safed about 4 hrs of training expenses...).
Turns out that this guy is a real hillbilly-show-idiot.
After 50+ successful hours flying my student got cookie and tried copying the hillbillies stunts like quickstopping the helicopter onto the deck of the boat - bang! there goes the TR.
He survived to get fired!
Most likely thats where his career stops, as he proofed that he is not mature enough yet...

Coyote: You are absolutely right - this specific maneuver is not for PPL´s. Not even for a regular CPL. I demonstrate (no student practise) this maneuver as a means to show where the limit is in auto flare or quickstop - Cannot pull more back cyclic than Rrpm allows (overspeed) after that you climb and end up high with nothing (rpm and/or speed). Mostly they get the message.

Nulian:
However there is at least one comercial application:

When we started to Ag-spray with a R-22 we where urged not to fly ag until factory checkout (Spray equipment manufacturer) - they where right:

In case of an engine out while spraying at 65 Kts and 3 ft of the crops you have no time nor space to flare off the speed, so immediate reaction was a fairly hard aft pull on the cyclic with collective unchanged, which would baloon the R-22 to about 10-12 ft, where one would get the collective down to maintain Rrpm. Once down to 40 kts (which happens in no time at all!) you flare it so hard that you just see sky strait out front (I learned subsequently to look out the side.........getting old, learning slows down too :p ) which kills the rest of the speed - tricky thing was not to hang there too long, but leveling the machine before the 10ft altitude where gone and run on level. It was exciting, luckely I never needed it, long live the Lycosaurus!!

Maybe doing film work you may get caught in extreme low level flying, but generally one will have enough to do to keep regular autorotational skills up!

Heliport:

Your line about just.helicopters LOL:D :D :D
There is no way this here gets so bad, ever!:ok:

3top
:cool: