Autorotate

[Bronx]

So that's what all this fuss was about???

Awesome shots as always. Thanks for sharing them Autorotate.
Keep 'em coming. You've got an appreciative audience.

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

It is interesting to see that the conversation here has become a little more constructive.

I didn't pull the pictures in the first place remember.

They are back for all that are interested, whats makes them interesting?

FYI

The Ecureuil is AS350B3 S/No. 3420 Registered to the South African Department of Axxxxxxxxxe, Private Bag XXX, Pretoria, Phone XXXXXXXX.

The 369D S/No. 590514D, Registered to XXXXXXXXX Helicopters.

Remember the 6 degrees.

Strange that a Government owned aircraft should be doing this but evidently it's OK with the B3 pilot even though he doesn't own the aircraft.

This information is also in the public domain so there is nothing to stop me posting that either. The exact details are not posted for obvious reasons.

Alright I'll play your game that this type of flying is condoned evidently by the "self elected peers" in this forum.

Given that these manouevres are outside the certification criteria - how do you get it into autorotation if the engine stops in that attitude?

Maybe the D model might but the B3 nose up in a zoom climb? Roll it upside down to keep the disc loaded, or pull back even further and go right around? Or push the stick forward - I don't think so! The blade tips would meet each other and you would turn into a lawn dart. This a whole lot tougher than the H/V curve.

There are experimental test pilots here - please elaborate.

Remember that a 214B can exceed 6000 fpm when light yet is placarded for 2 reasons not to.

1/ The skylights will fall in on your head

2/ If the single engine stops you are in a ballistic trajectory and the blades will have stalled by the time it starts back towards Terra Firma due to gravity. You definitely won't be unloading one of these puppies as we all should know.

This is about 60 knots ROC remember.

If it was OK I am sure there would be information in the RFM surely.

Or is Holy Sh$t still the last comment made when this happens - now I'm starting to get it - silly me.

Or is it the RISK being taken that these photographs deserve to be called "Holy Sh$t" if not I guess it would be "Silly Paint Jobs" or "Blue Sky and African Trees but sorry something got in the way".

Over to you.....................

[Autorotate]

You know what GCN, Screw This. I have deleted the pics, happy now you got your own way. You obviously have it in for me, for whatever reason, but dont really care to be honest.

All I wanted was to share some great images but cant be bothered with all this B/S thats going along with it. Posting the contact details for Land & Ag was a low thing to do. What was that for, so something would just happen to try and contact them.

I think its now time for me just to go back and work on my magazine and leave you to bitch and complain about whatever you wish to. Will also go back through all the images I posted to the rotorheads at work and remove every one that doesnt show everything absolutely 100% conforming to every rule and reg there is out there.

Have a nice day. To everyone else lets leave this topic drop. I am not going to post any further images, period. Not worth the bull!!!! that comes with it.

Autorotate.

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

Hey Ned get back on the Ritilin and stop crying in your Corn Flakes!

My point was that what you do here can be very pervasive. Be careful. There is no need to spit the dummy! The least you could do is P/Shop the registration marks.

I have no agenda other than to point out how easy your actions can be misconstrued by lots of people who don't have HELICOPTER goggles on.

It took literally seconds to obtain that information and as you can see it can be very damaging in many ways and I am on the other side of the planet from you.

There is more in the public domain and no I will not post it.

No disrespect meant at all.

For all concerned I would ask Black Fly to pull the thread. It's your option Mr Fly.

[Ascend Charlie]

Have you readers ever watched the behaviour of the spectators leaving a car-race meeting? Aren't you glad that the spectators at an air show go home in their cars and not in their aircraft?

Should the photos be there? A difficult thing to answer. People like to see pictures of planes and choppers doing spectacular things, and as long as they don't then try to do it themselves, that is fine.

Maybe the 300-hour Robbo pilot who gets fired up by a photo or video, will try something speccy. If he gets away with it, he will change his underwear and say "Holy sheet, I will never try anything like that again!" but it is the poor bunny who flies that machine several hours / days / months later, who suffers when the blade comes off, and investigators ask "Why the heck did that happen?"

When the 300-hour pilot is tracked down and is standing in the dock, and the prosecutor asks,"Why did you fly this aircraft into this particular manoeuvre, which is outside the approved flight manual envelope?", he can always rely on the good old "Streaker's Defence."

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

[ShyTorque]

My vote goes for leaving the thread on display. Let the viewers decide what they want to make of the opinions displayed here.

[I know what I think. Leave the forum moderators to moderate the posts and let the regulatory bodies regulate the flying].

[turboshaft]

Ned,

Regardless of what happens to the Holy Sh1t! images, I sincerely hope your last response doesn't mean we'll lose your regular contributions. As you yourself stated, you know a good photo when you see it, and the number of visitors to the 'Rotorheads around the world' aptly demonstrates this. They also help pass the time in-between issues of H/O !


Cheers,
T/shaft

[Heliport]

Giovanni Cento Nove

..... the "self elected peers" in this forum.

Do you mean the other members of this forum who've expressed opinions with which you disagree? The only person who's 'self-elected' is you. You've self-elected yourself as the arbiter of what people should and shouldn't post on this forum and you resort to nasty tactics to achieve what you want.
Interesting that is precisely what Autorotate said you did in the post which was deleted before I saw it. What a coincidence - not!


Black Fly
I hope you don't pull the thread. Leave it so people can see for themselves what's happened here.


Heliport

[Autorotate]

Heliport & Black Fly, let the post stand but lets let it die. No point in dragging this on. I will continue to post images in the rotorheads at work and will use better discretion. As I said above I try not to upset people in this industry as I spend all my time trying to promote the industry, not cause problems. Hell I spent the last few years doing that and its time for a change.

GCN is entitled to his opinions, as are we all, and I have to respect that. Maybe he has shown us just how easy it is to cause someone problems if we really wanted to, even if the methods were pretty blunt.

Anyway lets leave it be and move on with more enjoyable things.

Neville "Ned"
(Thought I might as well use my real name as everyone knows who I am anyway

[Heliport]

Very generous of you in the circumstances Ned.

Heliport

[Black Fly]

Heliport

Agreed.

The Black Fly

[RotorDompteur]

GCN;
How sad it is that you keep going after Autorotate.

You have proven your point - if anyone with bad intentions should enter this forum he can spoil right about anything if he wants to.

With your attitude we might as well delete all stories on the forum where a regulation has been violated - people without "helicopter goggles" on could trace down our IP addresses and send them to the CAA, right..?



Autorotate;
I understand you. But what a shame. Love your pictures.
Let us know if you one day will post some pictures of your "I love Me Wall"...

[attackattackattack]

Hey GCN - report this you miserable toerag.

Remember because you can doesn't necessarily mean you should. That applies to pulling surly little hissy fits on pprune just as much as it does to flying upside down.

[Autorotate]

Can everyone do me a favour and let this thread die. GCN is entitled to his viewpoints and they have to be respected whether we like it or not. Same as mine, or yours or yours etc etc. The personal insults dont really solve anything except stir things up further.

Just remember I am the one that was on the end of the original posts so if I am ok to let it go, then I would sincerely ask all the other members here to do likewise.

If you want to make comments on the images on the rotorheads thread then post them there, or on the AH1Z photoshoot thread, but lets let sleeping dogs lie. Thanks in advance all.

Ned

P.S. Remember I would be the first to get stuck back into someone, but sometimes people can be right in some cases, and you have to respect that. May not like it, but have to respect that.

P.P.S. The shot of the Lynx is actually not illegal because its military, an approved aerobatic aircraft, and the crew spend hours practising the manouver, and are sanctioned to do it by every man and his dog up the chain of command.

[Helipolarbear]

That's a great photo of a Lynx, but it's a pity the camera was upside down! Must have been the 'Sanctioning Dog' that took it!

[GCN Due]

Yeah it's me again.........

Just to put the record straight and cut to the chase.

1988 - I think

Aircraft - Bell 205A1

Location - Hawkesbury River NSW Australia

Event - Bridge to Bridge Waterski Race

Operation - Running the race TWICE.

Pilot - Me

Synopsis

Boat ran the race in the Mens event. I was at the finish line and we picked up the boat (Bullet 1800 Mariner Mod VP engine - good for slightly better than 100 MPH BTW) with a 100' longline. Back then Aussies really didn't know what a longline was. Flew the boat back to the start to run the Womens race. The highway was closed by the law so we could cross it. Client had some pull evidently. Channel 9 Sydney filmed the operation and it was with agreement with me - no problem.

Put the boat in the water near Dangar Island, line was disconnected from the boat. Boat driver who was with me in the aircraft as was deemed "necessary" to the operation, exited the aircraft into the water from about 20 feet off the skid. All filmed by Channel 9.

Six o'clock news that night. Local Flight Ops Inspector is watching the news at home. Chokes on his Tim Tam!!!!!!!!!!

Come Monday dragged before the FOI and his cohorts.

The problem was that the law as it stood then said "Carriage of persons on the wings or undercarriage shall not be done." If the guy jumped out without touching the skid there would have been no cause.

I then asked - What about parachute operations and now they allow "hover exit" as things have grown up a bit.

As you can see, I agreed with the filming of the operation and we were pretty certain we had all the bases covered. The boat had been test flown for stability prior and had a drogue chute fitted due to its C of G being out of wack from the way it wanted to fly.

A flag was flown from the base of the longline as well with the sponsors name on it.

Pretty much a straightforward operation so I thought.

Now with some 20/20 hindsight Ned and I agree to disagree, what the rest of you think well thats based on your personal experiences and views just the same as mine.

I have PM'ed Ned on this but possibly the SuperMod doesn't like my point of view as for some reason I can't use my old login to read Neds PM's to me. Cookies anyone?

The "media" can be a dangrous thing - obviously because how many people love to control it and make a fortune from it?

Ned, now you know what was in the closet. Being dragged before the authorities is not something you need as a black flag against you and it can screw up your self esteem. Nothing ever came of it officially in the end.

So now you know my reasons for the previous posts.

The alleged "offence" was really minor compared to what was in the photographs, yet I was dobbed by something I agreed to.

Just sharing the experience so others won't have to go through it or get caught out the same way. Some people here think that is unreasonable evidently - so be it, but I do have the T shirt.

:formerly GCN who possibly isn't allowed an opinion or maybe it's just a technical thing?

[Diablo's advocate]

If a guy wanted to be a real pratt he could point out many unsafe practises on that one flight.

You long-lined the boat, (good on ya BTW! that's the safest thing you could have done) now did you fly from the right or left ?? If from the left, you had someone in the command seat who did not have a license. If from the right, did you stick your head out the window, or take a door off? If you took the door off, and it was a civvy 205 (not ex-mil UH-1) you violated the limitations section of the manual. Read the very first paragraph in Limitations, and you will see it written that flying with the crew doors (pilot's/co-pilots doors) off in an assymetrical condition is prohibited. If you used the window, then ignore the point.

How was the boat driver deemed necessary ?? When flying forest fire ops, no forestry officials are allowed to ride along while we are performing slinging ops (except when bucketing). They are not deemed to be necessary, even though they are trained in slinging ops.

When you dropped the boat driver off, where was the long-line? You didn't mention if you dropped it on the shore or what you did with it. I hope you didn't have it on while you performed the drop off. I shudder to think what it could have gotten snagged on while it was out of sight on the bottom of the river.

You dropped him from 20 feet. You were unable to get any lower? That seems to me to be rather high for a hover exit with someone who is untrained in the operation. While performing hover-exit ops we will not do it if the person has to fall from the aircraft. It's just plain dangerous.

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

I see your point of view and that's about all, it is your point of view after all.

You long-lined the boat, (good on ya BTW! that's the safest thing you could have done) now did you fly from the right or left ?? If from the left, you had someone in the command seat who did not have a license. If from the right, did you stick your head out the window, or take a door off? If you took the door off, and it was a civvy 205 (not ex-mil UH-1) you violated the limitations section of the manual. Read the very first paragraph in Limitations, and you will see it written that flying with the crew doors (pilot's/co-pilots doors) off in an assymetrical condition is prohibited. If you used the window, then ignore the point.

Civvy 205A1, LH Bubble door, Flight Manual Supplement and Instrumentation. Ex Mil UH-1's is a new thing in that country.

How was the boat driver deemed necessary ?? When flying forest fire ops, no forestry officials are allowed to ride along while we are performing slinging ops (except when bucketing). They are not deemed to be necessary, even though they are trained in slinging ops.

Why would they be there when bucketing anyway? Because of this, number 4.

allow a person to be carried during
rotorcraft external-load operations unless that person--
(1) Is a flight crewmember;
(2) Is a flight crewmember trainee;
(3) Performs an essential function in connection with the external-load
operation; or
(4) Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with
that operation.

I guess the Swiss and the Kiwi's should stop carrying pax with sling loads then. I have licenses in both those countries, I better let them know how wrong they are.

Kiwi regs.

135.95 Helicopter sling loads
(a) Each pilot-in-command performing an air transport operation in a
helicopter shall not carry a helicopter external sling load.
(b) Notwithstanding 133.53, each pilot-in-command performing a
commercial transport operation in a helicopter may carry goods in a
helicopter external sling load if—
(1) the goods in the sling load are associated with the passengers on
board; and
(2) the flight complies with the remaining helicopter external load
operation requirements in Part 133; and
(3) the flight is conducted under VFR by day; and
(4) the helicopter is operated with not less than a 10% power margin
from maximum power available at the point of departure and
landing.

When you dropped the boat driver off, where was the long-line? You didn't mention if you dropped it on the shore or what you did with it. I hope you didn't have it on while you performed the drop off. I shudder to think what it could have gotten snagged on while it was out of sight on the bottom of the river.

Last time I looked it was a jettisonable load. Maybe it makes you shudder.

You dropped him from 20 feet. You were unable to get any lower? That seems to me to be rather high for a hover exit with someone who is untrained in the operation. While performing hover-exit ops we will not do it if the person has to fall from the aircraft. It's just plain dangerous.

It was over the water, to go lower would mean ingesting salt spray into the engine with the possible sudden stoppage as they are known to do. Ask a guy with one in his boat, which there are many T53's. I guess your hover exit would entail filling the engine with salt. The guy was actually a skydiver but figured that because the drop was so low he only needed a lifejacket. It is legal to drop people from aircraft last time I looked. They have the option of the neccessary equipment.

Hey, the only rule I broke, according to the Authorities and the rules at the time, was the guy stood on the skid.

[deeper]

What have we missed out on????????????????????????????????

I've been away.

[Diablo's advocate]

Hmmm, untrained passenger in the command seat. So you could guarantee that in an emergency he wouldn't impede the full movement of the controls?

Last time I looked it was a jettisonable load. Maybe it makes you shudder.

Ever seen what happens to a machine that snags a long-line? Not pretty. Oh and the pilot's all said that the line was jettisonable too. Seems that if you put enough force on the hook it may not release. Then there is the chance the line snags, but before the pilot gets a chance to release it, the line breaks free and smites the tail or main rotor. Ooops! Oh well, you got away with it.

It was over the water, to go lower would mean ingesting salt spray into the engine with the possible sudden stoppage as they are known to do.

Your point taken. As with many posts, etc. not all the information was given in the original post. All rivers I have dealt with are freshwater, and I've never had any problems with freshwater ingestion, and I've done a few hover-exits in my days.

Why would they be there when bucketing anyway?

A few of the forestry ministries like spotters onboard medium lift helicopters when bucketing on initial attack. They have gotten authority from our aviation authorities to do so. They feel it makes for a more efficient use of the resource. It also allows us to quickly change from a bucketing machine, to a people mover.

(3) Performs an essential function in connection with the external-load.
(4) Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with
that operation.

You didn't answer me. How did you deem him essential to the operation? Did he help hook up the boat? How about unhooking it? Sorry if anyone thinks I'm being such a prat, but you did bring up the safety thing. If he served no purpose in the hooking up, or unhooking of the load, how was he essential? He sure shouldn't have been needed to help place the load, since you had a bubble window. Think about anything long enough and you can rationalise any type of maneuver.