Possibly so they can teach them on OCF/Sqn's where the guys can get a feel for their chosen (or nominated) steed.

I dont think the outcry is justified. They will still be taught, just at a different point.

Interesting. My intro to wingovers was courtesy of a 30 year old German Huey. I now know why they have windows on the roof. Looking through them at the ground was not something I expected...

And the 412 can't do them... right.

Reading between the lines it may be part of the 'fallout' from the Catterick Puma crash? :hmm:

MGD - I don't suppose it will feature on any OCU syllabus as they are pretty full already - if you only teach them on the squirrel and then the pilot doesn't see one again until the front-line, he/she will have forgotten everything about them and you will be starting again from scratch.

If you reinforce the Squirrel training on the Griffin (just like all the other exercises) the pilot is more likely to retain some of the skills so that the front-line training is a refresher. After all they were in the syllabus until Bell (it would appear) put their oar in.

Dundiggin' - I would have thought the Catterick crash is exactly the reason to teach pilots how to do this stuff properly rather than the 'look what I got shown last week by the Sqn ripsh*t' technique of passing on handling skills.

Unfortunately many Sqn pilots who start to throw the aircraft around do so based on little knowledge or practise and think that helicopter aeros need to be flown in the same brutal and unsympathetic way that they are shown on FW.

All helicopter aeros, from wingovers in a Sq to backflips in a Lynx (no I'm not suggesting backflips go on the syllabus) can be flown smoothly and the handling skills need to be taught all the way through training.

helicopter aeros need to be flown in the same brutal and unsympathetic way that they are shown on FW

I can assure you that any student demonstrating brutal and unsympathetic handling - aeros or otherwise - on FHT is going to struggle to get to a rotary course!

I was a little intrigued by the AOB limit that was mentioned earlier for the Griffin, so I had a look at prohibited maneouvres in my 412EP FM today and all it says is that aerobatics are prohibited........this has probably been done before but wtf is the definition of aerobatics in a helicopter????

Turkey

Advanced wingovers on the Squirrel 60deg nose up then 90deg bank. Limited on the Griffin because Bell haven't 'tested' beyond 30 AOB, so won't approve more. Crab - Bell didn't put their oar in - if I recall correctly, someone at Sy made the mistake of asking Bell their opinion - usually a bad move!

Turkeyslapper, i'd check your amendment state. My limits section, Rev 27 Oct 07!, says
"Intentional maneuvering (sic) resulting in roll attitudes in excess of 50* angle of bank, or pitch attitudes lower than 15* nose down or higher than 30* nose up are prohibited".
It also adds 4* nose up or down on sloping ground.

Thanks Jim...best I do. Hmmmmmm amendments, I have heard of those unfortunately I doubt my current workplace has. GPS data cards expired in 2004 amongst others.

Cheers

Turkey

Alltrimdoubt - I have seen plenty of FW aeros where two hands on the stick, rapid full deflection inputs and stacks of G are the techniques used - that is brutal and unsympathetic when tried in a helicpter:)

Guys this is very old news, 6 years ago when I was just about leaving Shawbury they introduced this limit. Been around for years.

HG

IIRC, the FAA/Bell definition of Aerobatic Manoeuvres was discussed with the IPT before FBS/FBH was awarded the DHFS contract, and has thus been known about since before DHFS as set up. At the same time, the manufacturers were shown the course content, and the likely fatigue spectrum for use of the aircraft in the RAF training role was assessed and approved.
The likely problem currently is possibly the need to reinforce the teaching, and do more wingovers, etc, than was originally assessed. This may be compounded by the fact that many MoD/Bell/CAA/FB people involved in the original technical negotiations have moved on, and the history has been lost. And there is sometimes a reluctance to ask some of the old and grey for their advice, in case it costs money....
I don't recall ever having been taught wingovers on my AFTS course on the Whirlwind (though doubtless OldBeefer may correct me!) but doing them in the Puma came naturally to anybody who had been through the Chipmunk/Bulldog and JP mill!

[email protected] - I agree. I too use both hands on and full deflection in the FW world when necessary But....having taught and displayed one of our more agile helicopters in the last millenium I am only too aware of the delicate touch needed and look for some degree of empathy with the a/c when assessing a student's handling skills.

"though doubtless OldBeefer may correct me" - no, I don't think we did - not intentionally anyway (other than that some student's attempts at recovery from IF UPs came pretty close!).

Alltrimdoubt - yes the Lynx at MW was a perfect tool for teaching smooth handling on wingovers, partly because it was so responsive and partly because they had G meters fitted. Many pilots snatch the pull-up into a wingover, partly due to adrenaline and partly due to lack of finesse whereas a squeeze followed by a progressive pull is much smoother and the G meter was there as proof of the pudding for the studes.

I'll try to pick my words carefully...

All the information available suggests that the Catterick crash was not caused by the crew not knowing how to do wingovers properly.

About the only thing my flying was not called was "brutal and unsympathetic"
but, whether or not they were taught how to do one correctly, I never met a sqn pilot who didn't have a go at a wingover.......and they can be mighty interesting done at low level in a helo! Hoping that drivers will shy away from overly dynamic manoeuvres if they are not taught them is real cloud cuckoo land stuff - esp when it is the sort of flying that may well keep them alive in the desert - train the way you expect to fight?

I think you will find the issue started when the update came in got to be 6 years ago. When it was realised this would restrict the syllabus questions were asked.

Such as "how come we have been doing it for so long". So, the audit trail was traced back and "idle stop" is absolutely correct in that the FAA definition of aerobatics was discussed, the syllabus was shown and it was all accepted. The first RTS clearly stated non aerobatic as defined by FAA [or words to that effect.

A weee time later an update to the RTS happened and the definition got shortened to non aerobatic. Which if your in the military means go check in - at the time JSP 318 and now JSP 550 the definition "less than 90 in all directions - again or words to that effect". So by that little shortening of words a world of staff officer pain occurred.

So for a period ladies and gents crews were flying the 412 perfectly approved [by the military] outside what the manufacturer intended. When it came to light, the question was asked - as it had to be - the rules were put back to what they should have been and ....... well I dont know I was posted at that point so what ever happened next I presume led to this thread starting now.

Of course this leads to a lot of other questions. Such as why did crews not use the RFM. Well at the time only a few could have told you what RFM stood for because they solely used the military docs. A certain amount of cross checking of information then came out of it.

Have to say though, this was not a contractor mistake it was .... well you can figure the rest.

Although interestingly on that last point SARREMF (I was involved on the fringes at the time cross-checking paperwork and getting the old contracts and tenders out of TNT storage and reading through them) the feeling was that the request stated "We want an aircraft that can do this syllabus: xxxxx Wingovers yyyyy" and FBH provided a helicopter that was technically unable to do so. The problem was that, as you say, during the "cross checking" of what the aircraft was able to do vs what the syllabus asked, someone got their wires crossed and assumed that a "wingover" did not meet our own definition of an aerobatic manoeuvre, vice the FAA. So some might say the contractor is not entirely blameless, but it's the RAF's fault for taking them at their word! (Basics some might say!)

SARREMF - can you be whiter than white and say you never exceeded 30 AoB in a Sea King:)?