need some opinion here...:(

[IO540]

What I actually wrote was

What I would call "smarter VFR pilots" navigate using instrument methods even if flying under visual flight rules.
Obviously I don't know everything but in 600+ hours over 4-5 years have never been lost, "uncertain of position", scared (except when scared by a mad instructor), etc etc so I guess I know a little bit about this stuff, and this is what I've been doing since the day after my PPL skills test

That was the context of my "600 hour" comment.

It's no wonder almost nobody here can understand the UK ANO, or even the simplest piece of legislation. You've got to read the context of what somebody wrote. Has anybody noticed that when I write something I try to set it out in nice easy to digest paragraphs? I can't make it any clearer.

It's a bit like the suppliers I deal with in my business. I send them a purchase order for three items, and they stop reading after the first one.

British education has a lot to answer for!

<- a very appropriate animated GIF

[Fuji Abound]

IO540 - I agree with your comments and I agreed with your earlier your comments. I understood perfectly what you were saying.

I thought the earlier comments and deliberate mis interpretation of your post was banal. It also seemed a good opportunity for those who think hours are all that matters to remind them that none of us stop learning - 100 hours, 1,000 hours, ten thousand hours.

[Whirlygig]

I think the earlier comments were pointing out that the rules governing helicopter aviation and fixed wings were quite different - that's all. No disagreement with respect to hours

Cheers

Whirls

[Fuji Abound]

Whirly - you are generous.

The earlier comments were, perhaps the later comments were not

[bencoulthard]

I back you up IO

You seem well informed and on the ball to me. Between you and Whirlybird i've seen some of the best advice offered on pprune.

ivierre: please accept my apologies for this thread hijack(even more than it has become already)

Ben (don't know much bout nuffin) Coulthard

[Whirlybird]

IO540,

I understood you. I'm sure many others did too. That's why we didn't comment - nothing much to say, except to waste bandwidth saying "I agree", "you're right", "good post", or something similar. But perhaps we should post that kind of feedback more often.

Anyway, please stop banging your head against that wall now, OK

[ShyTorque]

Ben,

IO often gives very good advice. However, irrespective of how many hours fixed wing experience he has, please DON'T go believing that small helicopters such as the Gazelle are "all weather" machines.

They are most definitely NOT, any more than are small fixed wing aircraft. Even relatively experienced pilots (some of them ex-military) have found that out the hard way....

The least expensive way to get aviation experience is in the least expensive aircraft. Most folks begin on FW and go on to get their rotary licence later and I wouldn't disagree with that. (There is at least one contributor here who didn't - she is, no doubt, just about to remind me ).

[Whirlygig]

That would be the contributor who said she's never flown a fixed wing thingy then eh?

Cheers

Whirls

[Whirlybird]

Most folks begin on FW and go on to get their rotary licence later

I'm not sure that this is the case. When I was doing my PPL(H), most of the other students had started straight off with helicopters. Similarly, as an instructor, I don't often get f/w pilots; it's usually people who just want to learn to fly helicopters. And considering the CAA only gives you 6 hours off the course if you've got a PPL(A), and not many people do the PPL(H) in minimum hours anyway, I'm not sure that it would save you any money...though extra experience, in any flying machine, is always useful of course.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

That would be the contributor who said she's never flown a fixed wing thingy then eh?

Cheers

Whirls

Those fish are up early, good morning Whirls!

Whirlybird, you may be correct and I bow to your instructional recency. My main, opening point was that it is cheaper to gain flying experience per se in a cheaper flying machine, irrespective of any concession given by the CAA.

[bladewashout]

Having only ever done Rotary, and starting in middle-age, it can take a while to get the hang of the thing (70+ hours rather than the minimum 45), and like most of my fellow-middle-aged students, we had a very healthy respect for the numerous ways helicopters can bite back, bordering on paranoia...

Fixed-wing students of a similar age seemed a lot more relaxed about their training, and seemed to pick up the skills a lot quicker.

Young whippersnappers seem to be irritatingly able to jump in and fly without a care in the world

I was hooked within about 30 seconds of the trial lesson, and being able to land in your back garden just can't be beat. As has been already said, it's the ultimate toy!

Good luck whichever you choose, just get airborne!

BW

[IO540]

Looking at the people I know who went to helicopters, it seems to me that while flying generally is not anywhere as cheap a hobby as many UK participants would like it to be, helis are even less cheap if you want something that feels reasonably solid.

Those (that I know) who went straight to helis were very well funded individuals, completely unlike the vast majority of the UK PPL customer profile, and while the scene does attract more posers than fixed wing (helis are a far more effective way to pull birds than fixed wing, so who can blame them) there are many punters who get into it because of the ease of parking and general versatility for ad hoc travel within the UK.

Very few people seem to get into f/w with any apparent utility objective, and indeed it is difficult to do so without becoming an owner or part-owner. The stuff which one can rent is mostly junk. Adequately capable helis can, on the other hand, be rented (at a price starting at say £400/hour).

I have zero personal operational experience of helis but having spoken to a number of the pilots (rare IR(H) types excepted) it appears that they do rely on the ability to easily land to avoid weather. In this respect, it seems to me that having had prior fixed wing IFR flight planning and navigation experience might be an advantage. Of the pilots who I know personally who have done both, this is their view too.

I have often toyed with the idea of doing a PPL(H) but it seems very hard work especially being nearly 50! Also I would really hate to have to go through the "Robinson" stage, flying what feels like a lawn mower except that it vibrates a lot more than my lawn mower. It would be like doing the PPL(A) all over again, in decrepit old Cessnas/Pipers. That's where my "Gazelle" comment came from. I strongly believe one should train, even ab-initio, in the same machine which one wishes to fly afterwards. Of course this makes instructors cringe.

Also I am not sure what is involved in going the N-reg route in the UK. I know it is practically impossible to do a standalone FAA PPL(A) in the UK, due to lack of FAA examiners coming over, DfT restrictions, etc. Where do PPL(H) pilots flying N-reg helis do their training? Do they all go to the USA? Or are they flying on a piggyback FAA PPL(H)?

[Whirlybird]

Those (that I know) who went straight to helis were very well funded individuals, completely unlike the vast majority of the UK PPL customer profile, and while the scene does attract more posers than fixed wing (helis are a far more effective way to pull birds than fixed wing, so who can blame them) there are many punters who get into it because of the ease of parking and general versatility for ad hoc travel within the UK.
Very few people seem to get into f/w with any apparent utility objective, and indeed it is difficult to do so without becoming an owner or part-owner.

While these individuals do exist, a lot of helicopter pilots start because they love the machines, the hands-on aspect, the sheer versatility which f/w aircraft just don't have - in my albeit limited experience of f/w types.

I have zero personal operational experience of helis but having spoken to a number of the pilots (rare IR(H) types excepted) it appears that they do rely on the ability to easily land to avoid weather.

I'm not sure that this is true. We do talk as though it is! We do feel better knowing we can. But I've never actually done it, in 450+ rotary hours (not a lot really, before anyone tells me). And I don't know many people who have. And it needs to be done with a lot of care, or you end up flying at 200 ft below cloud in poor vis and becoming another statistic - since even helicopters can't make instant landings.

I have often toyed with the idea of doing a PPL(H) but it seems very hard work especially being nearly 50!

IO540, I don't give my age away on PPRuNe, but I wasn't very much younger than that when I started flying helicopters. You are nowhere near too old. That's a lousy excuse.

I strongly believe one should train, even ab-initio, in the same machine which one wishes to fly afterwards. Of course this makes instructors cringe.

No, I'm not cringing. I think learning on an R22 might make you a better pilot though.

IO540,
One thing you seem to have omitted in all of this is the pilot who flies for the fun of it. The pilot who doesn't necessarily want to go anywhere, and certainly not any great distance, but is happy doing a little jaunt on a sunny weekend. A f/w pilot like this quickly uses up all his/her local airfields and gets bored. The rotary equivalent can probably spend a summer or two at least landing in friends' gardens, local pubs and hotels, and similar places. And it probably won't cost much more, if any.

Finally, we're not all well-heeled. Some of us were well-heeled for long enough to qualify...but windfalls get used up. One of my PPL students does manual work in Tesco. Another is a psychiatric nurse. Another is in IT, surprise surprise. The private owners tend to be medium-size business owners, but not the rest of us. We're just helicopter addicts.

[muffin]

Originally Posted by Whirlybird

The pilot who doesn't necessarily want to go anywhere, and certainly not any great distance, but is happy doing a little jaunt on a sunny weekend. A f/w pilot like this quickly uses up all his/her local airfields and gets bored. The rotary equivalent can probably spend a summer or two at least landing in friends' gardens, local pubs and hotels, and similar places. And it probably won't cost much more, if any.:

Thats me Whirly.

I do exactly that in both f/w and rotary. And the list of pubs, hotels, friends back gardens, museums, etc is a lot longer than the list of airfields and farm strips combined. The nice thing about doing this in a helicopter is that I rarely need to go above 1000 feet or so agl to do it. Can I add the field next door to you to the list yet?

[Whirlybird]

muffin,
I was thinking of you as I wrote that....funny thing, that. As for the field next door to me, I still haven't met the farmer, but since it's full of sheep and cute little lambs right now, I rather suspect he wouldn't appreciate your R22 landing there. The woman two doors away says you can land in the field she uses for her horses, but I haven't found out where it is yet. I'll see what I can do; can't have you getting short of landing sites for sunny weekends, can we?

[bladewashout]

Someone should keep a list of people who have landing pads and can offer mutual cups of tea....

BW

[Whirlygig]

They have - it's called The Helicopter Club of Great Britain but you're meant to be a member to take part!

Cheers

Whirls

[cessnasey]

hey, didnt mean to come across as ignorant in myfirst post, it was more for humour than serious advice, hence the smilie.

but you are right i have never flown a helicopter. im still learning to fly fixed wing at the mo and havent passed the point that im confident of handling engine failure in a cessna, the thought of it sh*its me up but i know theres still hope as i have a few mins gliding if i keep my speed up. hopefully i will land a little softer this way.

but in a heli, the thought of engine failure above 15ft, to me, just feels like the end! im sorry if im upsetting you rotor heads. i do not know too much about helis, the main factor for me when choosing to fly fixed wing was more a money thing than safety but hey, having wings attached did contribute also.

im sorry but anyone who would choose to have engine failure in a heli over a fixed wing light aircraft has a death wish in my opinion. a light aircraft has wheels, after landing you can roll on to lose speed, in a heli you will simply come to a halt. this in itself is enough to make me feel safer in a cessna, not to mention failure in a heli will cause loss of most controls and gauges. also helis are allot more sensitive at the controls (as far as i know) i could go on and on as to why i think an airplane is safer.

i dont mean to go on and on, its just i dont like to be referred to as ignorant. and i can only judge whats safer by info thats given to me. yea, engine failures are one in a million, but statistics point at the cessna as the safer option, so im going that way!

[Whirlybird]

but in a heli, the thought of engine failure above 15ft, to me, just feels.........anyone who would choose to have engine failure in a heli over a fixed wing light aircraft has a death wish in my opinion. a light aircraft has wheels, after landing you can roll on to lose speed, in a heli you will simply come to a halt.

A common misconception. Let me see if I can explain this.

If the engine fails in a helicopter, it will go quiet, the low rotor RPM horn will blare at you, and you will get a sudden yaw to the left (right in Russian and French helicopters, depends which way your rotors turn). As for f/w aircraft, you are likely to have had some preliminary warning that all was not well, but let's suppose you didn't and it happens suddenly.

You lower the collective lever. That is ALL you have to do quickly. Now you have time. You will be in autorotation, which means that as you descend, the air from underneath keeps the rotors turning - like a windmill or a sycamore leaf. You will be descending at about 1700ft/min, which is relatively fast, but at 2000 ft gives you over a minute to sort things out. That is enough time. You can turn, speed up, slow down; the helicopter is under control.

You set up at 65kts or so, and start to look for a landing site. All you need is a flat area; it doesn't need to be big. You turn into wind, or approach your site from a base leg; as for f/w, there are different ways of doing this. I prefer to adjust my speed; if you slow down, you will cover less ground, and can work out exactly where you want to land...a bit like using air brakes in a glider. But in a helicopter, you can slow down as much as you want and it won't stall.

You're now at 40-50 ft, and back to 65kts, and you start a flare to arrest your rate of descent. You flare, then level at about 5ft or so, still with some forward movement. As the helicopter reaches the ground, you raise the lever; this cushions your landing. A run-on landing is quite acceptable, and easier than stopping with no forward speed. We have skids, remember; you can run on fine with those.

Now, if you do it right, you can apply the carb heat, lack of which probably caused the engine failure in the first place, turn the switch, and fly again. I know an instructor who did just that on a demo on a trial lesson; his student never knew they'd had a real engine failure. But suppose you get it wrong. So long as you lower the lever, keep the helicopter under control, and find a flat landing site, you should walk away. So long as you land vertically, the seats and skids are designed to collapse to protect the occupants. And helicopters are replaceable.

Whenever I get trial lesson students who think if the engine fails in a helicopter you die - usually f/w pilots - I demonstrate an auto. They're usually surprised at how un-scary it is, and how much control you have.

Here endeth today's helicopter lesson...as I now have to go teach this stuff for real!

[IO540]

Except that in helis with little rotor inertia, and from hover, you have, how long? to push the collective down. Under 1 second according to a friend who is a 5000hr IR(H).