Mountain Flying
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: canada
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well 170, thats the $40.00 question, what is the wind ??
it appears to be light to me, blowing light snow up the hillside, but not strong enough to blow it at a large angle at the top.
if it was a very strong wind, with corn snow being pulled off the hillside, you would see a definate angle to the snow at the crest of the hill.
but those are guesses, you have to be there to determine what is actually happening.
it appears to be light to me, blowing light snow up the hillside, but not strong enough to blow it at a large angle at the top.
if it was a very strong wind, with corn snow being pulled off the hillside, you would see a definate angle to the snow at the crest of the hill.
but those are guesses, you have to be there to determine what is actually happening.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Demarcation lines?
Why would you want to spend any time at all on the lee side of a mountain? That's fine if you and the winds are light. If they're anything above 30kts, you should stay well away from the lee side and make your approach at maybe 90 degrees to the wind, in a nice low power shallow approach giving yourself a nice big escape route into wind and down the hill.
I have spent many hours taking a max gross weight (external load) helicopter to mountain tops in VERY windy conditions. There is sometimes no way you would even GET to the top of the mountain, without climbing with the updrafts. The last thing you want to do, is get on the wrong side of a mountain, they are much harder than you
I have spent many hours taking a max gross weight (external load) helicopter to mountain tops in VERY windy conditions. There is sometimes no way you would even GET to the top of the mountain, without climbing with the updrafts. The last thing you want to do, is get on the wrong side of a mountain, they are much harder than you
whirleybirdsa
Does anyone know if there is a good instructional book on "Mountain Flying". I hear the course at Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flying in Penticton, B.C. is really great. If anyone has done their course and has a copy of their guide please shout... Or any other good books or reads...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown light aircraft for some time in southern Alberta, Canada. Only as a passenger in rotary in the Rocks. Climbing at 2k fpm to instantly dropping at 5kfpm can induce a serious pucker factor.
STALKING THE MOUNTAIN WAVE Mountain lee wave soaring and the history of wave soaring in southern Alberta, Canada.by Ursula Wiese is a great read. If you don't understand the way the weather works around here you can end up in a pile of hurt in a real hurry. If you pay attention the flying is never boring and always awe-inspiring.
STALKING THE MOUNTAIN WAVE Mountain lee wave soaring and the history of wave soaring in southern Alberta, Canada.by Ursula Wiese is a great read. If you don't understand the way the weather works around here you can end up in a pile of hurt in a real hurry. If you pay attention the flying is never boring and always awe-inspiring.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BC Helicopters have a small manual that accompanies their mountain course.
The thing i would note is that the principles are fairly simple and derive from the basics of confined areas with the added fun of genuine limited power, unusual winds/turbulence, the potential to get eaten by a hungry bear.
I did the course for fun last summer and it's a great chance to improve your general skills and start to learn about mountain flying. I'd emphasis the practical aspect - the principles are simple but the practical application is harder as real situations combine a lot of aspects in ways a textbook cannot cover or convey. And i would emphasis the start as it takes time and tutored practise to become proficient. I didn't do any snow or high winds but i did lose/adapt my ingrained habit of flying airfield style rectangular circuits (!) and learnt a lot about making approaches as safe as is possible given terrain, wind, trees, etc. Surface/slope analysis is fun too - you can arrive in your clearance and find a range of nasty obstructions, loose dust/ash, not as flat as you thought surfaces.
Don't know if anyone makes one, but a video with commentary would be good for teaching.
British Columbia scenary is very impressive too, so if you fancy a change from the likes of good old flat Florida, have a look at http://www.bchelicopters.com/ or give em a call - they're very friendly.
(One other general note, there's some structural difference in rotary careers in canada wrt other parts of world - the instructors i met had huge amounts of experience - another plus point for the nation.)
The thing i would note is that the principles are fairly simple and derive from the basics of confined areas with the added fun of genuine limited power, unusual winds/turbulence, the potential to get eaten by a hungry bear.
I did the course for fun last summer and it's a great chance to improve your general skills and start to learn about mountain flying. I'd emphasis the practical aspect - the principles are simple but the practical application is harder as real situations combine a lot of aspects in ways a textbook cannot cover or convey. And i would emphasis the start as it takes time and tutored practise to become proficient. I didn't do any snow or high winds but i did lose/adapt my ingrained habit of flying airfield style rectangular circuits (!) and learnt a lot about making approaches as safe as is possible given terrain, wind, trees, etc. Surface/slope analysis is fun too - you can arrive in your clearance and find a range of nasty obstructions, loose dust/ash, not as flat as you thought surfaces.
Don't know if anyone makes one, but a video with commentary would be good for teaching.
British Columbia scenary is very impressive too, so if you fancy a change from the likes of good old flat Florida, have a look at http://www.bchelicopters.com/ or give em a call - they're very friendly.
(One other general note, there's some structural difference in rotary careers in canada wrt other parts of world - the instructors i met had huge amounts of experience - another plus point for the nation.)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0605&file=whoneedsmountai
http://http://www.aviationtoday.com/...dsmountain.htm
Who Needs Mountain Flying Training?
Understanding how the speed and direction of the wind can change with the shape of the land is a critical first step to flying safely in the mountains.
By Jan Rustad and Tim Simmons
Turbulence, backlash, mountain illusions, high-density altitude, down-flow--all terms that lead to anxiety and fear. Fear leads to tension, which diminishes both rational decision-making and smooth, accurate pilot control. Not the ideal image of a mountain flying pilot who needs to be cool, calm and collected--minimizing the risks and maximizing the aircraft's capability.
Mountain flying can be just plain dangerous. But do we just accept the additional risks and fumble our way fearfully to the scenic but scary peaks? Certainly not. Pilots tend to be a calculating bunch, and that's exactly how we should approach the business of mountain flying--in a very calculated and precise fashion.
Through appropriate ground schooling and flight training with an experienced mountain-flying instructor, it is possible for a student pilot to develop a healthy knowledge and respect for the mountain winds. Understanding how the speed and direction of the wind can change with the shape of the land is a critical first step to flying safely in the mountains.
We need knowledge. With knowledge we can build experience safely.
Jacques Giard is a Senior Instructor at the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training. He has been teaching the Mountain Flying Course for 10 years. On the first day of Ground school Giard often likens upflow and downflow to an escalator. "If this escalator is going down, it is like downflow. If you decide to climb up or even remain stationary on the descending escalator it will take more energy."
Pilots can learn that with a precise and disciplined style of flying, and using specific flying techniques, it is possible to safely evaluate the mountain winds. Easily recognizing up-flowing air from down-flowing air is one of the basic necessities. In the early stages of the Canadian Helicopters' Mountain Course, students are introduced to the "Contour Crawl".
The Contour Crawl is carried out in close proximity to the hill at 50 kt. and at a fixed altitude. If the aircraft can be accurately controlled to maintain these parameters, it will show some very obvious flight characteristics, so that the pilot can determine up-flowing air from down-flowing air.
Before launching into the contour crawl itself, we need to know the power setting required to maintain straight and level flight at 50 kt., in air that is neither descending or climbing (i.e. in the middle of a wide valley, not close to any hills). This power setting we call "Baseline Torque". It is our benchmark for determining whether we are in upflow or downflow.
In upflow, the power required to maintain altitude is noticeably less than baseline torque. The air is relatively smooth, unless affected by mechanical turbulence. The aircraft, although perfectly in trim, will crab away from the hill.
In downflow, the power required to maintain altitude is more than baseline torque. There is more turbulence. The airspeed is harder to maintain and the aircraft will crab into the hill.
Aided by an elaborate 18 chapter Mountain Manual, computer PowerPoint presentations and the use of classroom mountain models, the instructors can explain the complexities of mountain flying. But, for the student, the real learning begins in the helicopter.
Understanding the issues and procedures is not the same as being able to put them into practice. One of the key reasons for the difficulty the student will experience at the start of the course is the mountain illusions.
Illusions in the mountains can humble the most experienced pilots. Pieter Koster remembers his Mountain Flying course many years ago. "At the time, I had about 7,000 hr. and was already a check and training pilot." Bill Foote, one of the Senior Penticton Instructors who has since retired, took him to a place affectionately known as "Happy Valley". As they got close to the valley, Bill asked Pieter to maintain 50 kt. and 4,500 ft.
"I was already told in ground school how and why illusions happen, " said Koster, "and armed with this knowledge I was sure I could handle this simple looking valley--after all, I was no novice pilot." As they entered Happy Valley, despite Pieter's efforts, the aircraft lost 20 kt. of airspeed and gained 200 ft. "It was humbling," said Pieter.
There is no cure for illusion. It is not something you become immune to, although you can learn to overcome its effects. Without careful control of airspeed, altitude and trim, you will not be able to gauge the strength or direction of the airflow over the terrain. A pilot needs to overcome the effects of the illusions in order to fly accurately in the mountains.
The Canadian Helicopters School in Penticton, BC, Canada, and its predecessor, Okanagan Helicopters, is considered a pioneer in Mountain Flying Training. The first known formal class was in 1952 when the Canadian Forces sent a few of their military pilots for mountain flying training. Since then thousands of military, police and civilian pilots from around the world have taken the course. Although the basic teachings of airflow and flying techniques have remained the same over the years, the syllabus has been continually refined to stay relevant to today's aircraft and today's missions.
Led by Jan Rustad, the school's Chief Flying Instructor, the six full-time certified instructors average well over 10,000 flight hours each. As a group, their experience in mountain flying is formidable. Jan has 36 years of flying helicopters in the Mountains and over 17,000 hours. Both he and his instructors not only teach flying, but they also remain current as operational pilots in the challenging Canadian charter business. Every summer they are "set free" from the school. Their missions can spread them across Canada. The flying ranges from fire fighting in the mountains of southern British Columbia to exploration work in the fiords of the High Arctic. "It's a chance to put what we teach into practice," said Tim Simmons, an instructor. "Also to continue learning. Learning from other pilots who are operational all year, and learning from our own experiences to fine-tune what we already know."
Pieter Koster has been flying helicopters for over 25 years and instructing for 14. "I flew for quite a few years without a Mountain Course, and although I understood the basics of mountain winds, I couldn't predict with any confidence what was going to happen as I approached the hillside. To be honest, it frightened me. All I could do to stay safe was to substantially reduce my payload." Pieter laughed as he recalls his early days of flying, "and it was still very uncomfortable!"
So who should take a Mountain Course? This question was asked of Kevin Mitchener, also a seasoned Mountain Flying Instructor, originally from Inuvik, Northwest Territories. His answer may surprise some: "Every helicopter pilot can benefit from a Mountain Course." He makes his case with many examples of pilots he has trained who are unlikely to ever see a mountain in their regular flying duties. "The training makes you a better pilot. More disciplined, more accurate, more aware of the wind, better equipped to maximize the aircraft's capabilities, safely."
Kathy Stewart is a pilot for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). She originally took the Mountain Course in Penticton in 1988, but this year she is back for a 5-hr. Mountain Refresher Course. "This refresher course is keeping the mountain flying issues and procedures clear in my head." Kathy is based in Alberta--a province that has both the flattest of prairies on the east side and mountains up to 12,000 ft. on the west side. "I don't get to the mountains every day so when I am dispatched to the high country, it's vital that I know what I'm doing. This refresher course is just an excellent way to fine tune my skills."
Once completed, the course finds the students comfortable with new terminology: demarcation line, boundary layer, crest of the hill, loaded disk, fanning out the approach, to name a few.
Each mountain formation has its own unique airflow, requiring a unique reconnaissance, approach and departure. The different formations include: ridges, crowns, cirques, shoulders, saddles, pinnacles, dead-end valleys, alpine meadows and canyons. Although each potential landing site in the mountains is different, there is a basic framework of procedures that will allow the pilot to remain safe and organized. This procedure is called the Basic Mountain Recce.
The Basic Mountain Recce is designed to assess the landing zone, find the wind and set up the approach. Throughout this procedure an escape route is always maintained. This escape route is commonly known as the drop-off.
Helicopters today are a far cry from those built 40 or 50 years ago, with more powerful engines and more efficient blades. The perception is often that the newer aircraft can overcome anything nature has to offer. This is a dangerous and misguided notion.
Decision-making is key in the mountain flying business. So, how does a pilot decide if it is safe to land? Does the helicopter have enough power to commit to a landing? Is there too much downflow, or too much upflow? Are there other concerns, such as backlash? For pilots to make safe decisions they need a well defined set of guidelines to live by.
In days-gone-by, pilots would make decisions based on their experience and that "seat of the pants" feel of the aircraft. A modern day mountain course teaches decision-making based on torque readings in the helicopter while flying the recce procedure and knowledge of the exact airflow around the landing site. Rustad likes to stress in his ground school presentations that "a mountain flying course is, in essence, the study and science of terrain airflow. It is of paramount importance to each and every helicopter pilot wherever he or she is operating."
He explained, "The airflow is ducted, changed and shaped by the terrain. Pilots with the knowledge provided on the CHL mountain flying course can confidently assess each location, before committing to land."
Wind finding is a major part of any mountain flying course, and Jan sums it up in simple terms: "The helicopter itself is like a weathervane on top of a barn. It always wants to point to the wind, especially in slow speed flight." He added that, "By evaluating the wind speed and direction precisely, it allows the pilot to pick the safest possible approach and departure paths to maximize the use of the wind vectors flowing over the landing zone. The end result is the pilot maximizing aircraft performance and safety during landings and takeoffs."
So, asking who needs a mountain flying course is like asking who needs insurance. Greg Lester, a senior pilot for the RCMP, had an interesting perspective. "Good training," he said, "is the best insurance you can buy."
Jan Rustad is chief flying instructor at the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training in Penticton, B.C. Tim Simmons is an instructor at the school.
Who Needs Mountain Flying Training?
Understanding how the speed and direction of the wind can change with the shape of the land is a critical first step to flying safely in the mountains.
By Jan Rustad and Tim Simmons
Turbulence, backlash, mountain illusions, high-density altitude, down-flow--all terms that lead to anxiety and fear. Fear leads to tension, which diminishes both rational decision-making and smooth, accurate pilot control. Not the ideal image of a mountain flying pilot who needs to be cool, calm and collected--minimizing the risks and maximizing the aircraft's capability.
Mountain flying can be just plain dangerous. But do we just accept the additional risks and fumble our way fearfully to the scenic but scary peaks? Certainly not. Pilots tend to be a calculating bunch, and that's exactly how we should approach the business of mountain flying--in a very calculated and precise fashion.
Through appropriate ground schooling and flight training with an experienced mountain-flying instructor, it is possible for a student pilot to develop a healthy knowledge and respect for the mountain winds. Understanding how the speed and direction of the wind can change with the shape of the land is a critical first step to flying safely in the mountains.
We need knowledge. With knowledge we can build experience safely.
Jacques Giard is a Senior Instructor at the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training. He has been teaching the Mountain Flying Course for 10 years. On the first day of Ground school Giard often likens upflow and downflow to an escalator. "If this escalator is going down, it is like downflow. If you decide to climb up or even remain stationary on the descending escalator it will take more energy."
Pilots can learn that with a precise and disciplined style of flying, and using specific flying techniques, it is possible to safely evaluate the mountain winds. Easily recognizing up-flowing air from down-flowing air is one of the basic necessities. In the early stages of the Canadian Helicopters' Mountain Course, students are introduced to the "Contour Crawl".
The Contour Crawl is carried out in close proximity to the hill at 50 kt. and at a fixed altitude. If the aircraft can be accurately controlled to maintain these parameters, it will show some very obvious flight characteristics, so that the pilot can determine up-flowing air from down-flowing air.
Before launching into the contour crawl itself, we need to know the power setting required to maintain straight and level flight at 50 kt., in air that is neither descending or climbing (i.e. in the middle of a wide valley, not close to any hills). This power setting we call "Baseline Torque". It is our benchmark for determining whether we are in upflow or downflow.
In upflow, the power required to maintain altitude is noticeably less than baseline torque. The air is relatively smooth, unless affected by mechanical turbulence. The aircraft, although perfectly in trim, will crab away from the hill.
In downflow, the power required to maintain altitude is more than baseline torque. There is more turbulence. The airspeed is harder to maintain and the aircraft will crab into the hill.
Aided by an elaborate 18 chapter Mountain Manual, computer PowerPoint presentations and the use of classroom mountain models, the instructors can explain the complexities of mountain flying. But, for the student, the real learning begins in the helicopter.
Understanding the issues and procedures is not the same as being able to put them into practice. One of the key reasons for the difficulty the student will experience at the start of the course is the mountain illusions.
Illusions in the mountains can humble the most experienced pilots. Pieter Koster remembers his Mountain Flying course many years ago. "At the time, I had about 7,000 hr. and was already a check and training pilot." Bill Foote, one of the Senior Penticton Instructors who has since retired, took him to a place affectionately known as "Happy Valley". As they got close to the valley, Bill asked Pieter to maintain 50 kt. and 4,500 ft.
"I was already told in ground school how and why illusions happen, " said Koster, "and armed with this knowledge I was sure I could handle this simple looking valley--after all, I was no novice pilot." As they entered Happy Valley, despite Pieter's efforts, the aircraft lost 20 kt. of airspeed and gained 200 ft. "It was humbling," said Pieter.
There is no cure for illusion. It is not something you become immune to, although you can learn to overcome its effects. Without careful control of airspeed, altitude and trim, you will not be able to gauge the strength or direction of the airflow over the terrain. A pilot needs to overcome the effects of the illusions in order to fly accurately in the mountains.
The Canadian Helicopters School in Penticton, BC, Canada, and its predecessor, Okanagan Helicopters, is considered a pioneer in Mountain Flying Training. The first known formal class was in 1952 when the Canadian Forces sent a few of their military pilots for mountain flying training. Since then thousands of military, police and civilian pilots from around the world have taken the course. Although the basic teachings of airflow and flying techniques have remained the same over the years, the syllabus has been continually refined to stay relevant to today's aircraft and today's missions.
Led by Jan Rustad, the school's Chief Flying Instructor, the six full-time certified instructors average well over 10,000 flight hours each. As a group, their experience in mountain flying is formidable. Jan has 36 years of flying helicopters in the Mountains and over 17,000 hours. Both he and his instructors not only teach flying, but they also remain current as operational pilots in the challenging Canadian charter business. Every summer they are "set free" from the school. Their missions can spread them across Canada. The flying ranges from fire fighting in the mountains of southern British Columbia to exploration work in the fiords of the High Arctic. "It's a chance to put what we teach into practice," said Tim Simmons, an instructor. "Also to continue learning. Learning from other pilots who are operational all year, and learning from our own experiences to fine-tune what we already know."
Pieter Koster has been flying helicopters for over 25 years and instructing for 14. "I flew for quite a few years without a Mountain Course, and although I understood the basics of mountain winds, I couldn't predict with any confidence what was going to happen as I approached the hillside. To be honest, it frightened me. All I could do to stay safe was to substantially reduce my payload." Pieter laughed as he recalls his early days of flying, "and it was still very uncomfortable!"
So who should take a Mountain Course? This question was asked of Kevin Mitchener, also a seasoned Mountain Flying Instructor, originally from Inuvik, Northwest Territories. His answer may surprise some: "Every helicopter pilot can benefit from a Mountain Course." He makes his case with many examples of pilots he has trained who are unlikely to ever see a mountain in their regular flying duties. "The training makes you a better pilot. More disciplined, more accurate, more aware of the wind, better equipped to maximize the aircraft's capabilities, safely."
Kathy Stewart is a pilot for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). She originally took the Mountain Course in Penticton in 1988, but this year she is back for a 5-hr. Mountain Refresher Course. "This refresher course is keeping the mountain flying issues and procedures clear in my head." Kathy is based in Alberta--a province that has both the flattest of prairies on the east side and mountains up to 12,000 ft. on the west side. "I don't get to the mountains every day so when I am dispatched to the high country, it's vital that I know what I'm doing. This refresher course is just an excellent way to fine tune my skills."
Once completed, the course finds the students comfortable with new terminology: demarcation line, boundary layer, crest of the hill, loaded disk, fanning out the approach, to name a few.
Each mountain formation has its own unique airflow, requiring a unique reconnaissance, approach and departure. The different formations include: ridges, crowns, cirques, shoulders, saddles, pinnacles, dead-end valleys, alpine meadows and canyons. Although each potential landing site in the mountains is different, there is a basic framework of procedures that will allow the pilot to remain safe and organized. This procedure is called the Basic Mountain Recce.
The Basic Mountain Recce is designed to assess the landing zone, find the wind and set up the approach. Throughout this procedure an escape route is always maintained. This escape route is commonly known as the drop-off.
Helicopters today are a far cry from those built 40 or 50 years ago, with more powerful engines and more efficient blades. The perception is often that the newer aircraft can overcome anything nature has to offer. This is a dangerous and misguided notion.
Decision-making is key in the mountain flying business. So, how does a pilot decide if it is safe to land? Does the helicopter have enough power to commit to a landing? Is there too much downflow, or too much upflow? Are there other concerns, such as backlash? For pilots to make safe decisions they need a well defined set of guidelines to live by.
In days-gone-by, pilots would make decisions based on their experience and that "seat of the pants" feel of the aircraft. A modern day mountain course teaches decision-making based on torque readings in the helicopter while flying the recce procedure and knowledge of the exact airflow around the landing site. Rustad likes to stress in his ground school presentations that "a mountain flying course is, in essence, the study and science of terrain airflow. It is of paramount importance to each and every helicopter pilot wherever he or she is operating."
He explained, "The airflow is ducted, changed and shaped by the terrain. Pilots with the knowledge provided on the CHL mountain flying course can confidently assess each location, before committing to land."
Wind finding is a major part of any mountain flying course, and Jan sums it up in simple terms: "The helicopter itself is like a weathervane on top of a barn. It always wants to point to the wind, especially in slow speed flight." He added that, "By evaluating the wind speed and direction precisely, it allows the pilot to pick the safest possible approach and departure paths to maximize the use of the wind vectors flowing over the landing zone. The end result is the pilot maximizing aircraft performance and safety during landings and takeoffs."
So, asking who needs a mountain flying course is like asking who needs insurance. Greg Lester, a senior pilot for the RCMP, had an interesting perspective. "Good training," he said, "is the best insurance you can buy."
Jan Rustad is chief flying instructor at the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training in Penticton, B.C. Tim Simmons is an instructor at the school.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
One thing to bear in mind about a school - they all teach you ways of getting into ever-more esoteric landing sites, which is OK, but few of them teach you the bread and butter stuff, like how to transit through the mountains for an hour or so and getting the least bumps for the customers, or using updraights for the least fuel used. I'm sure Jan does that (and he knows his stuff), but it's something to think about.
phil
phil
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil.
WTF are you talking about????
Just admit that there are other ppl out there with more knowledge and experience than you.
You're concerned about the school teaching you to transit the mountains for several hour flights? Well once you understand the flow of air in the mountains and the forces affecting it, you will have no trouble transiting them... I assure you.
Jan Rustad et al train civilian/military pilots from all over the world for a reason. There are guys at VIH, Highland, Alpine and others who have been doing and teaching these methods for decades. They KNOW what they are talking about, and they teach you the "bread and butter" that gets you through a day/summer/year of everyday work in the these environments. You seem bent on trying to discredit their efforts and it's getting old.
RH
WTF are you talking about????
Just admit that there are other ppl out there with more knowledge and experience than you.
You're concerned about the school teaching you to transit the mountains for several hour flights? Well once you understand the flow of air in the mountains and the forces affecting it, you will have no trouble transiting them... I assure you.
Jan Rustad et al train civilian/military pilots from all over the world for a reason. There are guys at VIH, Highland, Alpine and others who have been doing and teaching these methods for decades. They KNOW what they are talking about, and they teach you the "bread and butter" that gets you through a day/summer/year of everyday work in the these environments. You seem bent on trying to discredit their efforts and it's getting old.
RH
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I'm not decrying Jan's efforts at all. I went to a school over that way that gave me a ride to and from sites that was very bumpy and not comfortable at all. Knew all about how to land in the wierdest places, but knew sh*t about getting there and back - wrong side of the valley, wrong positioning, using too much power and ended up calling the trip off early because he was using too much fuel. It's an extremely useful trick to be able to get nearly 4 hours out of a jetbox or get most of the way up to a site just by using updraughts, and it isn't something you can "just pick up."
Flew with a non-instructor from another place, same area, and it was entirely satisfactory. The Bighorn guys at Springbank are good, as well.
I'm just pointing out to potential students that there's a lot more to flying in mountains than landing or taking off, and that not all instructors know what they are talking about. There is a lot of stuff taught in all areas of this industry that is just plain sh*te, and everybody assumes that what is taught in one part of it is valid for all other areas. Just because something's been taught for decades, doesn't mean to say it's right, and I've been questioning things ever since I got to Canada and saw the appalling standard of material available to train pilots with (not including From The Ground Up - being Canadian you will know who I mean). Since Transport Canada now use my stuff for the exams, I reckon I do know something of what I speak about.
Different techniques are for different situations, and there are times when a certain approach is suitable and when it isn't. To be taught that there is only one type of approach (or rather, that "that's the only one we teach here") is not the mark of a good school in my opinion. You should be shown all the options and left to make your own decisions.
Naturally, I do not include Jan's outfit in these comments (if he's reading this, Hi again, Jan!), but there are one or two round there who could do with a shakeup.
Phil
Flew with a non-instructor from another place, same area, and it was entirely satisfactory. The Bighorn guys at Springbank are good, as well.
I'm just pointing out to potential students that there's a lot more to flying in mountains than landing or taking off, and that not all instructors know what they are talking about. There is a lot of stuff taught in all areas of this industry that is just plain sh*te, and everybody assumes that what is taught in one part of it is valid for all other areas. Just because something's been taught for decades, doesn't mean to say it's right, and I've been questioning things ever since I got to Canada and saw the appalling standard of material available to train pilots with (not including From The Ground Up - being Canadian you will know who I mean
). Since Transport Canada now use my stuff for the exams, I reckon I do know something of what I speak about.Different techniques are for different situations, and there are times when a certain approach is suitable and when it isn't. To be taught that there is only one type of approach (or rather, that "that's the only one we teach here") is not the mark of a good school in my opinion. You should be shown all the options and left to make your own decisions.
Naturally, I do not include Jan's outfit in these comments (if he's reading this, Hi again, Jan!), but there are one or two round there who could do with a shakeup.
Phil
Last edited by paco; 25th May 2006 at 07:40.
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steep or shallow ?
Paco
I would only do steep approaches if I was shure to stay in the laminar part, that means the approach is not too steep, to LS is not too far behind the ridge, basic wind is not too gusty...., because I do not want to end up at the wrong side of the demarcation line with a very steep descent, just before landing.
In the Mistral zone, the winds tends to be very gusty (typical 35 gusting 50), so for lesser ridges a shallow approach is the best in that case, provide you know a good path in depending on the other mountains around. That is at least what I do at my own LS.
Allow me to say that for anyone with not enough experience, be it flight technique or lack of local knowledge of the particular mountains and the local winds caution should be taken because unless it is a clean, isolated nice ridge, wind may not really be so predictable. Just saw a fire bomber (205) pilot come in at LFMQ (Le Castellet France) a few weeks ago with a very white face ... I am inclined to state that this was not because of lack of experience...
my 2cents, d3
I would only do steep approaches if I was shure to stay in the laminar part, that means the approach is not too steep, to LS is not too far behind the ridge, basic wind is not too gusty...., because I do not want to end up at the wrong side of the demarcation line with a very steep descent, just before landing.
In the Mistral zone, the winds tends to be very gusty (typical 35 gusting 50), so for lesser ridges a shallow approach is the best in that case, provide you know a good path in depending on the other mountains around. That is at least what I do at my own LS.
Allow me to say that for anyone with not enough experience, be it flight technique or lack of local knowledge of the particular mountains and the local winds caution should be taken because unless it is a clean, isolated nice ridge, wind may not really be so predictable. Just saw a fire bomber (205) pilot come in at LFMQ (Le Castellet France) a few weeks ago with a very white face ... I am inclined to state that this was not because of lack of experience...
my 2cents, d3
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Yeah, it can be tricky, and local knowledge helps a great deal - a Boss I once had battled the Mistral for nearly five hours in a Beaver - he said he wasn't sure if the ADF was working or not, stuck on the same heading! (I didn't ask why he stayed there that long - I think there was a General in the back)
You cannot afford to assume anything in mountains.
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying shallow approaches shouldn't be used (perhaps I should clarify the terminology - almost horizontal ones, where the collective is in the armpit and if a downdraught pushes you down you've got no hope of regaining your flight path).
I just object to people stating that shallow approaches, or whatever, are "the only way". I've flown with enough guys who have the experience to know what they are doing who use steeper approaches (indeed, I was taught that way). Of course, they use shallow ones as well. You just have to use what works.
As for transit flying, I did four years of a scheduled helicopter service between Glasgow and Fort William, and all sorts of places in between, and believe me, you soon learn the value of a smooth ride to regular customers!
You cannot afford to assume anything in mountains.
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying shallow approaches shouldn't be used (perhaps I should clarify the terminology - almost horizontal ones, where the collective is in the armpit and if a downdraught pushes you down you've got no hope of regaining your flight path).
I just object to people stating that shallow approaches, or whatever, are "the only way". I've flown with enough guys who have the experience to know what they are doing who use steeper approaches (indeed, I was taught that way). Of course, they use shallow ones as well. You just have to use what works.
As for transit flying, I did four years of a scheduled helicopter service between Glasgow and Fort William, and all sorts of places in between, and believe me, you soon learn the value of a smooth ride to regular customers!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paco,
Fair enough, but you are lumping Jan in with these other schools of which you speak. Jan doesn't preach a narrow, one size fits all(situations) approach to mountain work. What he does preach is an in depth UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics of wind in the mountains. Once that is understood, then the pilot has the tools with which to make the best approach possible, landing if all indications are that it can be accomplished safely and with a very high degree of certainty.
There are certain situations where CHL does condone a "steeper" type approach. "Steeper" benig a relative term of course, and then usually only in Saddle type situations with higher winds. Again, steep is probably not the right term.
I just wanted to make sure you are not lumping Jan into the group of average Mounatain Schools that you speak of.
RH
Fair enough, but you are lumping Jan in with these other schools of which you speak. Jan doesn't preach a narrow, one size fits all(situations) approach to mountain work. What he does preach is an in depth UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics of wind in the mountains. Once that is understood, then the pilot has the tools with which to make the best approach possible, landing if all indications are that it can be accomplished safely and with a very high degree of certainty.
There are certain situations where CHL does condone a "steeper" type approach. "Steeper" benig a relative term of course, and then usually only in Saddle type situations with higher winds. Again, steep is probably not the right term.
I just wanted to make sure you are not lumping Jan into the group of average Mounatain Schools that you speak of.
RH
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not the schools teach it, Phil has a point about mountain flying being much more than mountain landings.
Illusions, navigation, performance, enroute winds, and weather are all considerations that require additional attention in the mountains. I've flown a number of SARs in the Rockies and typically find crashes that occurred during the enroute phase, more so than the landing phase.
The important thing is to understand that the discussion here is not training. If you haven't been trained in mountain flying, don't use this discussion as your licence to kill (yourself). Take a course.
Illusions, navigation, performance, enroute winds, and weather are all considerations that require additional attention in the mountains. I've flown a number of SARs in the Rockies and typically find crashes that occurred during the enroute phase, more so than the landing phase.
The important thing is to understand that the discussion here is not training. If you haven't been trained in mountain flying, don't use this discussion as your licence to kill (yourself). Take a course.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have taught mountain flying in the UK for some time. I have read the thread with interest as you have all described valid techiniqes for different occasions. However, the winning post has got to be by Mathew Parsons. Dont think you can read this and go practice! Get a course. I have been caught out when teaching and had some close shaves because the wind wasn't doing what I expected - or was that complacency creeping in? Either way the hills can and will bite if you do not give them the utmost respect all the time. The only true way to learn respect is to be shown by some one.
And just for the debate. I prefer to teach people to stay on the updraughting side level with the LZ or just below and use the wind to reduce my power requirement so the lever is NOT in my arm pit. However, every student has to start somewhere so you start with the constant angle approach then,when they have that, you show them how you could do it other ways and explain why and when to make the choice. They all work in different situations.
Interestingly, I always prefered teaching on days with 15 to 20kts of wind than days with less than 10 - always more of a challenge and more diffcult! I have completed SAR jobs in gusting over 60kts and thats just not fun - exciting - but definately not fun!
And just for the debate. I prefer to teach people to stay on the updraughting side level with the LZ or just below and use the wind to reduce my power requirement so the lever is NOT in my arm pit. However, every student has to start somewhere so you start with the constant angle approach then,when they have that, you show them how you could do it other ways and explain why and when to make the choice. They all work in different situations.
Interestingly, I always prefered teaching on days with 15 to 20kts of wind than days with less than 10 - always more of a challenge and more diffcult! I have completed SAR jobs in gusting over 60kts and thats just not fun - exciting - but definately not fun!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Remote Hook - you make a good point, and just to make it clear I certainly don't lump Jan in with my comments - in fact he and I spent a year together one week at Rainbow Lake. The CHL school has an international reputation, and there are also a couple of others who are quite good - I believe I mentioned Paul & Richard at Bighorn. Both of those are accepted by BC Forestry, and they wouldn't be there if they didn't know what they were doing.
Interestingly enough, one of the questions in the FAA ATPL(H) concerns pinnacle-type approaches to tall buildings in high winds and turbulence, and the answer to that one is a steeper-than-normal approach.
Anyhow, back to that single malt.
Phil
Interestingly enough, one of the questions in the FAA ATPL(H) concerns pinnacle-type approaches to tall buildings in high winds and turbulence, and the answer to that one is a steeper-than-normal approach.
Anyhow, back to that single malt.
Phil
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Well, that's another good point 
- having gone through nearly every one of the JAA questions to check I've got my course right, there were a good deal with highly suspect answers.
Phil
- having gone through nearly every one of the JAA questions to check I've got my course right, there were a good deal with highly suspect answers.Phil
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remote Hook has written Jan doesn't preach a narrow, one size fits all(situations) approach to mountain work. What he does preach is an in depth UNDERSTANDING of the mechanics of wind in the mountains. Once that is understood, then the pilot has the tools with which to make the best approach possible, landing if all indications are that it can be accomplished safely and with a very high degree of certainty.
1. Do I have the skills and knowledge necessary to land?
2. Does the machine have the performance within allowable limits to land?
3. Do all the environmental factors allow a landing?
4. Do the mission benefits warrant acceptance of the risk?
5. Even if the previous factors indicate that I can land, should I land?
I will start by saying I have known, and currently know more experienced high mountain pilots than I. Some have been higher, some have been there more often but I consider myself as having enough experience to comment.
I have used both US military/FAA methods and European Methods (primarily Swiss, French and Italian) to land in high mountains and found each alone, or in combination necessary at times. I have worked up to 18,000 feet on a routine basis in virtually all conditions the mountains have to offer over a nearly 40 year period and have rarely used one single method or technique. I do not know Jan, but if Remote Hook has represented his basic teaching premise correctly, he is teaching what I have learned from others and my own personal experience.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wembury, Devon
Age: 51
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lucky enough to do the two week course with CHL last year in penticton and was the only civilian on the course, the rest being Canadian military. For them it was one of the highlights of the their careers and all said how much their flying had improved on the course(multi thousand hour pilots).
They had no doubt done the military school of mountain flying ie. steep approaches above demarcation line etc. which I can understand in times of war maybe be better if you need to get machine down quickly and if you stack it you are just a battle stastitic. However, I am sure these guys were all converted to shallow approaches and all the techniques that go with it.
Just flicking through manual I was given which was obviously foundation for course. Table of contents reads: i)Geography of mountains ii)Mountain winds + weather iii)Illusions iv)Contour crawl v)Basic mountain reece vi)Circling Recce vii)Standard mountain approach, Landing + Take-off viii)Shoulders and ledges ix)High alt. ops + aircraft performance x)Ridges and crowns xi)Saddles xii)Cirques xiii)Glaciers and snowfalls xiv)Pinnacles xv)Alpine meadows + high alt confined areas xvi)Canyons, Dead-end valleys, and riverbeds xvii)Log pads and Platforms in Mountain confined areas.
As you can see it was a very thorough course and I havent seen any text book come close in going into so much detail. Also experiencing the sometimes stomach churning conditions mountains can throw at you with an instructor is far more advisable than trying it on your own after reading some handbook.
Interestingly on the course the only sites we aborted landings on were where updrafts were so strong we were unable to load the disc sufficiently to say we were in control of aircraft and attempting to land would have been dangerous. How would you deal with that Paco where a steep approach would initially load disc to arrest vertical descent after which you would almost be out of control.
They had no doubt done the military school of mountain flying ie. steep approaches above demarcation line etc. which I can understand in times of war maybe be better if you need to get machine down quickly and if you stack it you are just a battle stastitic. However, I am sure these guys were all converted to shallow approaches and all the techniques that go with it.
Just flicking through manual I was given which was obviously foundation for course. Table of contents reads: i)Geography of mountains ii)Mountain winds + weather iii)Illusions iv)Contour crawl v)Basic mountain reece vi)Circling Recce vii)Standard mountain approach, Landing + Take-off viii)Shoulders and ledges ix)High alt. ops + aircraft performance x)Ridges and crowns xi)Saddles xii)Cirques xiii)Glaciers and snowfalls xiv)Pinnacles xv)Alpine meadows + high alt confined areas xvi)Canyons, Dead-end valleys, and riverbeds xvii)Log pads and Platforms in Mountain confined areas.
As you can see it was a very thorough course and I havent seen any text book come close in going into so much detail. Also experiencing the sometimes stomach churning conditions mountains can throw at you with an instructor is far more advisable than trying it on your own after reading some handbook.
Interestingly on the course the only sites we aborted landings on were where updrafts were so strong we were unable to load the disc sufficiently to say we were in control of aircraft and attempting to land would have been dangerous. How would you deal with that Paco where a steep approach would initially load disc to arrest vertical descent after which you would almost be out of control.