Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

R22 crash at EGTC

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

R22 crash at EGTC

Old 30th Mar 2004, 20:00
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
As an owner, I was at one time foolish enough to allow my R22 to be used for engine-offs at a time when others on the flight line specified no full-down autos.
Because of the lack of restriction my utilisation was high, but I didn't get much sleep. Cack-handed, heavy-footed students (and instructors) were battering my little ship on the ground, day in, day out, and to what purpose? The full-down auto is a party trick, nothing more.
Even if the machine you're about to fly has no obvious damage on it, do you know how it's been weakened and compromised by the kind of treatment you wouldn't visit on an agricultural tractor?
It's increasingly common for owners to specify no engine-offs in leaseback deals. I do.
t'aint natural is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2004, 05:03
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,694
Gaseous, I take your point but are you advocating no EOLs for student pilots? If they are taught well to get into auto promptly and PFL to a suitable site then surely they need the skills to get that last little bit sorted and walk away from the wreckage. I agree that the R22 is a surprisingly crashworthy machine (just as well really) but it won't save you if you don't have the basics of "flare, check, level, cushion" tucked away.
Yes, unannounced throttle chops can be interesting for the instructor if the student gets it wrong but that's why the QHI should have his hand on the lever when he does it. We used to do a demo of Nr decay in the Gazelle by getting the student to close the throttle at 1000' downwind in the EOL circuit, hold the lever where it was for a second or 2 to show the rate of decay, and then use a turning flare to recover the Nr and position for the EOL. I wouldn't wait for so long in an R22 but the students cetainly understand the neccessity to enter auto promptly after that demo.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2004, 05:43
  #23 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
crab: if you carried out that demo in a robinson, you'd end up having a bad day. 2 seconds? no thanks!

Entering auto initially will probably save your life. Let the insurance company worry about the last 3 feet. I firmly believe that if you do nothing else but flare, level, cushion at the right height will probably be good enough to save your life. Not getting into auto in the first place if the donkey quits, makes everything else irrelevant.
Old 31st Mar 2004, 10:35
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
A training organisation is responsible for training to the syllabus required by the authorities. Is this not the case?

Therefore it is the training organisations responsibility to provide suitable a/c for the purpose of training a student fully and competantly to the syllabus. Is this not the case?

The syllabus for a R22 will have to be different to that of a S300 due to the fact that the R22 is an awful machine on which to train, especially when EOL's are to be practiced.
Is this not what all the foregoing respondants are suggesting?
Head Turner is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2004, 13:12
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lancashire UK
Posts: 568

I think it reasonable to have a full EOL demonstated to a student by a highly experienced CFI or examiner so that they know what to expect for the last bit if it happens for real. I agree with Taint about the party trick and KMS has it spot on.
As mechanical engine failures are so rare (1 R22 in 8 years- and AAIB suggest that may have been as a result of carb heat control abuse), perhaps more emphasis ought to be given to not running out of fuel, carb heat, neg G, wire strike, bad weather and low Nr recovery- the issues that really kill pilots in R22s. This could be a more productive use of training time than bouncing R22s off the ground.
Gaseous is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2004, 13:23
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pewsey, UK
Posts: 1,914
I think Head Turner has it, at least partially.

The CAA examiners department is (in my perception at least, which stands to be corrected) mainly staffed by ex-mil instructors, some of whom have then partaken of the civil commercial world, and whose expectation of a helicopter is that it will EOL to the ground quite nicely, as they've never contended with an R22 - an outstanding example is a recent examiner who I've heard (again I stand ready to be corrected) tests for FI(R)s without an EOL, just a power recovery due to lacking time in R22s before starting in post.

Thus if the CAA reduced requirements for EOLs specifically for R22s, but made sure deficiencies elsewhere as previously mentioned were addressed then it may help. However, operators of other types would surely feel aggrieved at a perceived "special treatment".

Where I would take issue with Head Turner is when he states "the fact that the R22 is an awful machine on which to train" - my italics. If it were SO awful the CAA would have done something drastic about it by now and operators would have moved to different types. And if Head Turner is who I think he is, R22 costs beat A119 costs for PPL hands down.
The Nr Fairy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.