Night Flying and Training (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Night Approaches
Any one else notice a unconcious tendancy to pull more aft cyclic on a night approach? (lit or unlit pad)
I went last week, and dound myself around 100FT with AS headed down the tubes.
The only thing I could figure was with reduced references gave me a feeling that I was higher and I would unconciously add more aft than I normally would. (I first believed I wouldn't be doing this in response to reduces references, as that would make me think I'm slow too, which wasn't happening, or at least I wasn't reacting to a perceived slow condition)
Glideslope was not a problem at the time but I could see the issues that could develop being low on AS at that point in an approach.
After discussing it with my CFI and knowing I might be doing that, the next ones were great.
On another point we had a round table discussion, some CFI's and I about altitude and flying, I know why 2k makes me some what uncomfortable in the aircraft unlike a plane, and until Shumpei brought it out I would have never have looked at it this way:
75 kias at 500 ft - > you look and feel like you are doing 75knots.
75 kias at 2k ft or higher - > you feel like you are not moving at all (heck at 3k prepping for VTR demo I felt we were already stopped!), don't get the visual you get lower, wondered if anyone shared that thought.
Anyone have any night time stories of similar nature?
------------------
Marc
I went last week, and dound myself around 100FT with AS headed down the tubes.
The only thing I could figure was with reduced references gave me a feeling that I was higher and I would unconciously add more aft than I normally would. (I first believed I wouldn't be doing this in response to reduces references, as that would make me think I'm slow too, which wasn't happening, or at least I wasn't reacting to a perceived slow condition)
Glideslope was not a problem at the time but I could see the issues that could develop being low on AS at that point in an approach.
After discussing it with my CFI and knowing I might be doing that, the next ones were great.
On another point we had a round table discussion, some CFI's and I about altitude and flying, I know why 2k makes me some what uncomfortable in the aircraft unlike a plane, and until Shumpei brought it out I would have never have looked at it this way:
75 kias at 500 ft - > you look and feel like you are doing 75knots.
75 kias at 2k ft or higher - > you feel like you are not moving at all (heck at 3k prepping for VTR demo I felt we were already stopped!), don't get the visual you get lower, wondered if anyone shared that thought.
Anyone have any night time stories of similar nature?
------------------
Marc
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1, do you have an 'unconcious tendancy' not to turn the steering wheel of a car enough when you are driving round a curve in the road? No, you look out and relate your position in the road to your hands on the wheel.(If you didn't you would crash the car.)
Do a similar thing in the air.
Unconcious tendancies lead to unconcious bodies.
Do a similar thing in the air.
Unconcious tendancies lead to unconcious bodies.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1,
I haven't done any night flying in helis yet, but this sounds to me like one of those classic cases of spatial disorientation or visual illusions you can get with reduced visibility. Landing accidents in fixed wing aircraft have occurred because in poor visibility acceleration can be perceived as pitching up, causing a tendency to lower the nose, which of course worsens the illusion so that the aircraft flies into the ground. In a helicopter you slow down on the approach; would this be the exact opposite - perceived as pitching down, so you tend to unconsciously pull back. I'm not sure. Interesting though; does anyone else know?
I guess this is another case of trusting your instruments.
(Well done; you may have got us off the R22 discussions
)
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
I haven't done any night flying in helis yet, but this sounds to me like one of those classic cases of spatial disorientation or visual illusions you can get with reduced visibility. Landing accidents in fixed wing aircraft have occurred because in poor visibility acceleration can be perceived as pitching up, causing a tendency to lower the nose, which of course worsens the illusion so that the aircraft flies into the ground. In a helicopter you slow down on the approach; would this be the exact opposite - perceived as pitching down, so you tend to unconsciously pull back. I'm not sure. Interesting though; does anyone else know?
I guess this is another case of trusting your instruments.
(Well done; you may have got us off the R22 discussions
) ------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At night there is not only a reduction in visibility, but also in the light quality. Surrounding cultural lighting can be misleading at night as well, or cause glare. Depth perception suffers and as a result more cross-referencing is required.
Flying in Canada, often in very sparsely settled areas, the effects are even more pronounced and often we wind up flying IFR on nights with no cloud.
The safest approach I have found is to treat night VFR like it is ALWAYS marginal VFR and be very careful.
About the altitude, part of the problem is also geting accustomed to a particular height. Students I have had that have never flown seized-wing a/c are less accustomed to the height and like it less. From my military time, we all started on jets and so were never really bothered by it. Its actually a lot of fun to see the world from on high once in a while.
Fly safe, and have fun.
Flying in Canada, often in very sparsely settled areas, the effects are even more pronounced and often we wind up flying IFR on nights with no cloud.
The safest approach I have found is to treat night VFR like it is ALWAYS marginal VFR and be very careful.
About the altitude, part of the problem is also geting accustomed to a particular height. Students I have had that have never flown seized-wing a/c are less accustomed to the height and like it less. From my military time, we all started on jets and so were never really bothered by it. Its actually a lot of fun to see the world from on high once in a while.
Fly safe, and have fun.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Heloteacher and Whirly,
Doris: I solicited responses because that is just what one is doing referencing outside. Lack of visual clues at night tend to make you do things you wouldn't do if you had more references. In the case of your turn on the road, what would you do if you can no longer see the edge of the road to reference?
(IMO It's not like driving a car, if I think about moving the steering wheel in a car, I have thought about it, if one thinks in certain heli's about moving the cyclic, you've just moved it enought to affect a change.)
Anyway, as I stated in my post, I corrected my issue, I wanted to see how others were coping with it, and offered the altitude comfortability issue as another topic we could engage in.
Helo, I like altitude too, but boy I was not ready for the wide view, and not having doors likely doesn't help me any but I'm up to 2K FT now, and trying to get used to it. Rob my CFI wants to hit 5K one day himself
We get a lot of low vis days here, and occasionally I get up at night, I know what you mean going into a sparse lit area, it's like a lack hole, plus I fly on the coast, one side: nice, lit, etc. Other side: ocean, few liners lit, etc. In short - hole.
Every time we go up for night time, at least Doug and Rob have had me do several circles begining out to the ocean to both learn to get a feel for reduced ref's, and I'll tell you it's a confidence builder too!
------------------
Marc
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 03 January 2001).]
Doris: I solicited responses because that is just what one is doing referencing outside. Lack of visual clues at night tend to make you do things you wouldn't do if you had more references. In the case of your turn on the road, what would you do if you can no longer see the edge of the road to reference?
(IMO It's not like driving a car, if I think about moving the steering wheel in a car, I have thought about it, if one thinks in certain heli's about moving the cyclic, you've just moved it enought to affect a change.)
Anyway, as I stated in my post, I corrected my issue, I wanted to see how others were coping with it, and offered the altitude comfortability issue as another topic we could engage in.
Helo, I like altitude too, but boy I was not ready for the wide view, and not having doors likely doesn't help me any
but I'm up to 2K FT now, and trying to get used to it. Rob my CFI wants to hit 5K one day himself We get a lot of low vis days here, and occasionally I get up at night, I know what you mean going into a sparse lit area, it's like a lack hole, plus I fly on the coast, one side: nice, lit, etc. Other side: ocean, few liners lit, etc. In short - hole.
Every time we go up for night time, at least Doug and Rob have had me do several circles begining out to the ocean to both learn to get a feel for reduced ref's, and I'll tell you it's a confidence builder too!
------------------
Marc
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 03 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hmmmm, hovering at 5K, that would be interesting!
Would have to check the charts though, probably could do it now while its cool, but likely not when we have our normal temps (32-33C )
Met a redheaded **** (8 ona 1-10 scale) last week in stuart when we landed, if that's what up there, boy I want to meet more
(was that what you meant?)
------------------
Marc
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 03 January 2001).]
Would have to check the charts though, probably could do it now while its cool, but likely not when we have our normal temps (32-33C )
Met a redheaded **** (8 ona 1-10 scale) last week in stuart when we landed, if that's what up there, boy I want to meet more
(was that what you meant?)
------------------
Marc
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 03 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The graph I have (not monitored) shows OGE at 5000 ft and 23 C as okay at 1320 lb, so in theory you're fine. In practice, unless you have some very high terrain (obviously not in FLA) you'll be moving either backwards or forwards and almost certainly descending, so pointless exercise in an R22. Different with rad-alt etc.
Regarding the loss of a/s, that is a very common fault with inexperienced night flyers. During the day you rely on so many subconscious cues to adjust attitude that when you lose them at night or IMC, pitch control can become erratic. Having a small (or none?) ADI, poorly lit won't help at all either. Adding 5 degrees nose up over the normal approach attitude, at night with no horizon,is very difficult to spot unless you are monitoring closely. The rapid washing off of IAS is dramatic though. Try it in daytime from 40 kts, and see how long it takes to get to 0 kts. Then leave the power and watch the rate of descent build up. It's dramatic, and at night and low level it can be a killer. (BTW, don't get yourself into vortex ring recovering from the experiment!).
Flying onshore the effects can be ameliorated often with suburban lighting, roads etc. In remote areas or offshore it can be very easy to fall for it. Night deck landings in total blackness can end in a premature stop several hundred yards short, as the inexperienced pilot pays too much attention to the target and not enough to what's happening to the a/c.
With a/c that involve large attitude changes during the decelerative phase eg S76, you can be fooled by the apparent movement of the target down the windscreen, giving a false impression of overshooting or 'going high'. Obviously this can lead to problems, and the physiological cues can be very powerful, to the extent of disbelieving the instruments.
A particular problem you'll have in the R22 is its lack of cyclic trim, so you are reliant on a pitch attitude being maintained by your hand, rather than the stick being held in a trimmed position. This is where the importance of a good cyclic hand position can manifest itself.
The other phenomenom you may experience is the reverse ie you don't slow down soon enough and go sailing past the target. With no texture cues to gauge your groundspeed, a point source target can seem to remain distant with now change in aspect, until the last moment. Attempting to salvage the approach can then lead to the earlier problem, particularly if you lose sight of the target due to violent flaring.
As someone says above, treat night flying as semi IF, look out when you really have to, look in when you really have to and try to hone your other senses such as hearing. You can normally hear speed loss of that extent, similarly you can hear Nr decay or rise if you are mishandling the collective through overcontrolling. Remember that the a/c does not know it is night, so will require the same approach profiles etc. Don't drag it in slowly in the HV curve.
If in doubt, go round and try again.
------------------
Another day in paradise
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 03 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 04 January 2001).]
Regarding the loss of a/s, that is a very common fault with inexperienced night flyers. During the day you rely on so many subconscious cues to adjust attitude that when you lose them at night or IMC, pitch control can become erratic. Having a small (or none?) ADI, poorly lit won't help at all either. Adding 5 degrees nose up over the normal approach attitude, at night with no horizon,is very difficult to spot unless you are monitoring closely. The rapid washing off of IAS is dramatic though. Try it in daytime from 40 kts, and see how long it takes to get to 0 kts. Then leave the power and watch the rate of descent build up. It's dramatic, and at night and low level it can be a killer. (BTW, don't get yourself into vortex ring recovering from the experiment!).
Flying onshore the effects can be ameliorated often with suburban lighting, roads etc. In remote areas or offshore it can be very easy to fall for it. Night deck landings in total blackness can end in a premature stop several hundred yards short, as the inexperienced pilot pays too much attention to the target and not enough to what's happening to the a/c.
With a/c that involve large attitude changes during the decelerative phase eg S76, you can be fooled by the apparent movement of the target down the windscreen, giving a false impression of overshooting or 'going high'. Obviously this can lead to problems, and the physiological cues can be very powerful, to the extent of disbelieving the instruments.
A particular problem you'll have in the R22 is its lack of cyclic trim, so you are reliant on a pitch attitude being maintained by your hand, rather than the stick being held in a trimmed position. This is where the importance of a good cyclic hand position can manifest itself.
The other phenomenom you may experience is the reverse ie you don't slow down soon enough and go sailing past the target. With no texture cues to gauge your groundspeed, a point source target can seem to remain distant with now change in aspect, until the last moment. Attempting to salvage the approach can then lead to the earlier problem, particularly if you lose sight of the target due to violent flaring.
As someone says above, treat night flying as semi IF, look out when you really have to, look in when you really have to and try to hone your other senses such as hearing. You can normally hear speed loss of that extent, similarly you can hear Nr decay or rise if you are mishandling the collective through overcontrolling. Remember that the a/c does not know it is night, so will require the same approach profiles etc. Don't drag it in slowly in the HV curve.
If in doubt, go round and try again.
------------------
Another day in paradise
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 03 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 04 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1:
Most of the points above are good. You may also want to try a "By the numbers" approach at night to a black hole or single point of light reference. ie:
VTOSS, 500 feet at 1 mile
400 feet at 3/4 mile;
300 feet at 1/2 mile; and
200 feet at 1/4 mile.
This will ensure a 3 degree glidepath to your landing site.
You may also want to do some reading on the effects of night visual illusions.
Knowing the pitfalls is half the battle.
For 212: I'd sure like to see a RADALT that indicates up to 5000 feet! Short of installing a TCAS/GPWS I thought they only went to 2000'.
For Helo Teacher: All night approaches/night flying should be treated as IFR when there is no visible, usable horizon.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
Most of the points above are good. You may also want to try a "By the numbers" approach at night to a black hole or single point of light reference. ie:
VTOSS, 500 feet at 1 mile
400 feet at 3/4 mile;
300 feet at 1/2 mile; and
200 feet at 1/4 mile.
This will ensure a 3 degree glidepath to your landing site.
You may also want to do some reading on the effects of night visual illusions.
Knowing the pitfalls is half the battle.
For 212: I'd sure like to see a RADALT that indicates up to 5000 feet! Short of installing a TCAS/GPWS I thought they only went to 2000'.
For Helo Teacher: All night approaches/night flying should be treated as IFR when there is no visible, usable horizon.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, mine go up to 2500 ft! I take the point, though some go that high. My point was he'd have a hell of job establishing a hover.
I agree with the numbers and gate bit, definately a good idea if not current even when experienced.
As a point of note, all night flying in the UK is IFR except in controlled airspace when it can be special VFR. It highlights the instrument element of night flying.
------------------
Another day in paradise
I agree with the numbers and gate bit, definately a good idea if not current even when experienced.
As a point of note, all night flying in the UK is IFR except in controlled airspace when it can be special VFR. It highlights the instrument element of night flying.
------------------
Another day in paradise
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey 212 ...
Lots of great stuff! I agree on the 5K hovering, in the real world, wouldn't hold it for long, certainly if were at 29-33C (but one can dream right? )
No AH on board, we do have one on the inst trainer. but you are purely visual on all the others
It's interesting that everywhere else (I believe) night flying is IFR, but here we can go VFR, I love night flying, just have to keep on top of everything.
Tried out the gate numbers offshore provided, worked out even better, now that I know what I was doing before, and using that as a gen guide. Much happier now.
>>A particular problem you'll have in the R22 is its lack of cyclic trim, so you are reliant on a pitch attitude being maintained by your hand, rather than the stick being held in a trimmed position. This is where the importance of a good cyclic hand position can manifest itself.<<
This is what I was referring to earlier, you don't have to do much but think to twitch your cyclic hand and move the nose further than you wanted, but I have found a spot for my hand on the leg/knee to anchor for approach once established, then hand movements only when needed I found works well (I hope you take my meaning there)
Ss for radalts:
AlliedSignal Bendix/King KRA-10A to 2500 FT (indicated)
A lot of the others I've seen also go to 2500
Can't remember if the APN-194 mil radalt went to 5K or not, (I think it did, from 2K to 5K you just had 1K increments, so it wasn't reliable, but would indiate, but I could be off).
------------------
Marc
Lots of great stuff! I agree on the 5K hovering, in the real world, wouldn't hold it for long, certainly if were at 29-33C (but one can dream right?
)No AH on board, we do have one on the inst trainer. but you are purely visual on all the others
It's interesting that everywhere else (I believe) night flying is IFR, but here we can go VFR, I love night flying, just have to keep on top of everything.
Tried out the gate numbers offshore provided, worked out even better, now that I know what I was doing before, and using that as a gen guide. Much happier now.
>>A particular problem you'll have in the R22 is its lack of cyclic trim, so you are reliant on a pitch attitude being maintained by your hand, rather than the stick being held in a trimmed position. This is where the importance of a good cyclic hand position can manifest itself.<<
This is what I was referring to earlier, you don't have to do much but think to twitch your cyclic hand and move the nose further than you wanted, but I have found a spot for my hand on the leg/knee to anchor for approach once established, then hand movements only when needed I found works well (I hope you take my meaning there)
Ss for radalts:
AlliedSignal Bendix/King KRA-10A to 2500 FT (indicated)
A lot of the others I've seen also go to 2500
Can't remember if the APN-194 mil radalt went to 5K or not, (I think it did, from 2K to 5K you just had 1K increments, so it wasn't reliable, but would indiate, but I could be off).
------------------
Marc
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1
In answer to your question concerning the problems of reducing A/S on night approaches it's quite simple really.(No I'm not being condescending, it really is simple).
Mostly it's down to reduced visual cues. By day there are plenty of these available both consciously and sub-consciously. Loss of depth perception. Peripheral movement cues that disappear, ground rush etc. These are what usually give you a fairly accurate impression of both closing speed and rate/angle of descent. As these are unavailable at night the tendency is often to maintain too high a ground-speed for a given height. Then as you perceive the LS disappearing down the front of the w/screen the automatic response is to use aft cyclic to reduce speed, in a vain attempt to maintain your sight picture and/or to lower the collective with the same aim. This obviously puts you perilously close to the Vortex Ring regime so is often discouraged by instructors!!
A useful technique that avoids this is to adopt that as taught in the military. e.g. 500'/50kts, 400'/40kts, 300'/30kts, etc. It works every time and unlike the solution offered by offshoreigor does not rely on knowing your precise range from the LS.
BTW hovering at 5k is something you get used to, ask any Army Gazelle pilot.
offshoreigor
There are Radalts that read up to 5k, believe me the AN/APN 198 for example.
Oh yes Lu, thanks for a very short if totally unhelpful reply.
In answer to your question concerning the problems of reducing A/S on night approaches it's quite simple really.(No I'm not being condescending, it really is simple).
Mostly it's down to reduced visual cues. By day there are plenty of these available both consciously and sub-consciously. Loss of depth perception. Peripheral movement cues that disappear, ground rush etc. These are what usually give you a fairly accurate impression of both closing speed and rate/angle of descent. As these are unavailable at night the tendency is often to maintain too high a ground-speed for a given height. Then as you perceive the LS disappearing down the front of the w/screen the automatic response is to use aft cyclic to reduce speed, in a vain attempt to maintain your sight picture and/or to lower the collective with the same aim. This obviously puts you perilously close to the Vortex Ring regime so is often discouraged by instructors!!
A useful technique that avoids this is to adopt that as taught in the military. e.g. 500'/50kts, 400'/40kts, 300'/30kts, etc. It works every time and unlike the solution offered by offshoreigor does not rely on knowing your precise range from the LS.
BTW hovering at 5k is something you get used to, ask any Army Gazelle pilot.
offshoreigor
There are Radalts that read up to 5k, believe me the AN/APN 198 for example.
Oh yes Lu, thanks for a very short if totally unhelpful reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Couldn't add much more than the good stuff already posted. I agree especially with the 400ft/40kts; 300ft/30kts etc. This works very well in poor weather as something to hang your hat on and encourages the scanning of the ASI which is half of the problem sorted.
We used to be required to hover at up to FL100 in a previous job. No radalt goes that high, although we did have a doppler "along & across" hovermeter for the RHS only. When flying from the LHS we used to watch the digital doppler readout and aim for "all the zeros". We flew at whatever altitude we could get at max. continuous power. All manual stuff, up to 2 and a half hours flight time depending on fuel load. Pretty unreal stuff at times. Improved the IF scan no end, though.
War stories again...sorry!
[This message has been edited by Skycop (edited 04 January 2001).]
We used to be required to hover at up to FL100 in a previous job. No radalt goes that high, although we did have a doppler "along & across" hovermeter for the RHS only. When flying from the LHS we used to watch the digital doppler readout and aim for "all the zeros". We flew at whatever altitude we could get at max. continuous power. All manual stuff, up to 2 and a half hours flight time depending on fuel load. Pretty unreal stuff at times. Improved the IF scan no end, though.
War stories again...sorry!
[This message has been edited by Skycop (edited 04 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wow! the 5000 feet hovering certainly pricked some egos. I was exaggerating when I said 5000 feet. I did spend a few weeks in a Schweizer 300, with 3 on board, hovering between 2 & 3000, 20 mins at a time for a total of around 5 hours a day, over one of the busiest airports in America. That was hard work, and very cramped.
Remember, hovering means one spot over the ground, not necessarily zero airspeed. If you're not comfortable with OGE hover, do it with an instructor for a while and practice engine failures in that situation.
Remember, hovering means one spot over the ground, not necessarily zero airspeed. If you're not comfortable with OGE hover, do it with an instructor for a while and practice engine failures in that situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reg C Elley:
Although your Altitude vs Airspeed analogy may work on a good visual night, it does not provide the necessary safe VTOSS (most twin helicopters are 35-45 kts) nor does it give you a very good margin above translational speed, (25-35 kts on most helicopters).
The "by the numbers" approach is designed for offshore approaches to a black hole, based on Radar distancing and provide a sfe flight profile with regards to VTOSS.
If used to an onshore facility, then it is only relevent when the distance back is known, however the approach speed must remain above translational speed at night regardless of distance back so as to avoid an inadvertant OGE hover at an unacceptable altitude.
Unlike the Military, Civil night ops are predicated on a known approach gate. I also know that in the Military, outside of a combat situation, you would not be expected to transition into an unrecenoitered area. At least that was the case in the CF.
Ofcourse if you are equipped with a Night Sun, then it becomes an entirely different story.
My point is, that if you are doing your night approach to a "Rig" type environment or to a "Known" land based helipad, such as a Hospital Pad or established night pad, then the "by the numbers" approach has been proven to be the safest and most effective in eliminating the guess work.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
[This message has been edited by offshoreigor (edited 05 January 2001).]
Although your Altitude vs Airspeed analogy may work on a good visual night, it does not provide the necessary safe VTOSS (most twin helicopters are 35-45 kts) nor does it give you a very good margin above translational speed, (25-35 kts on most helicopters).
The "by the numbers" approach is designed for offshore approaches to a black hole, based on Radar distancing and provide a sfe flight profile with regards to VTOSS.
If used to an onshore facility, then it is only relevent when the distance back is known, however the approach speed must remain above translational speed at night regardless of distance back so as to avoid an inadvertant OGE hover at an unacceptable altitude.
Unlike the Military, Civil night ops are predicated on a known approach gate. I also know that in the Military, outside of a combat situation, you would not be expected to transition into an unrecenoitered area. At least that was the case in the CF.
Ofcourse if you are equipped with a Night Sun, then it becomes an entirely different story.
My point is, that if you are doing your night approach to a "Rig" type environment or to a "Known" land based helipad, such as a Hospital Pad or established night pad, then the "by the numbers" approach has been proven to be the safest and most effective in eliminating the guess work.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor
[This message has been edited by offshoreigor (edited 05 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well this certainly has become a great topic for discussion, which is what I wanted, we have borne out a few types/methods of performing a night approach, dangers involved, etc. I'm pleased!
I believe if I know the distances, I would tend to go with offshore and use "the numbers", (why not? If I know my distance there shouldn't be much of a fudge factor)
When I don't however, the alt/AS seems to be a good substitute gouge for getting myself in the ballpark, as long as I stay atop of any other issues that may arise on the approach.
One thing I do know, the more you do 'em, the better you get at 'em! (shoot, at least I hope so )
Oh, and I did check, the 194 will go to 5K, but I've not really seen one that holds there, always locks out sporadically.
------------------
Marc
I believe if I know the distances, I would tend to go with offshore and use "the numbers", (why not? If I know my distance there shouldn't be much of a fudge factor)
When I don't however, the alt/AS seems to be a good substitute gouge for getting myself in the ballpark, as long as I stay atop of any other issues that may arise on the approach.
One thing I do know, the more you do 'em, the better you get at 'em! (shoot, at least I hope so
) Oh, and I did check, the 194 will go to 5K, but I've not really seen one that holds there, always locks out sporadically.
------------------
Marc
Guest
Posts: n/a
Offshoreigor - Rw-1 is having problems in an R22 which does not have a radar for precise ranging and, if I am correct, does not even have an artificial horizon as the aircraft is not certified for instrument flying (please correct me if I am wrong RW-1). The method suggested by RegCElley of matching height above the LS with airspeed is far more relevant in the light single engine helicopter - who cares about safe single engine speed when you are in the avoid curve all the way down?
RW-1 you dont say what sort of LS you were making approaches to and what arrangement of lights you were using to judge your approach perspective. The previous advice to scan regularly to the side during your approach to help assess your rate of closure is very valid and will avoid the 100' hover or the screaming jesus final approach.
RW-1 you dont say what sort of LS you were making approaches to and what arrangement of lights you were using to judge your approach perspective. The previous advice to scan regularly to the side during your approach to help assess your rate of closure is very valid and will avoid the 100' hover or the screaming jesus final approach.