Cross wind approach
I have to agree with rotordogs comments (maybe not his attitude
).
IF you are inside the H/V curve (iaw your FLM) then you are going to CRASH the helo if your power plant(s) stop working.
This means that the average pilot will bend his/her helo and maybe more. It means just that:
You will NOT have time to recover the situation (to a controlled autorotation) before striking the ground. You might crash more gently if you are into wind or taking off or cruising or doing the samba! but you WILL CRASH
That is the definition of the H/V curve:
"In the event a power plant fails in a single engine helo, the average pilot with average reactions will not have sufficient height to recover the a/c to a safe autorotational profile."
If you start 'pursuading' newbies that there are some sexy little tricks of the trade to avoid any pain and suffering whilst INSIDE the dead man's curve.....they will end up, just that
Oldbeefer: I agree: the curve is tested at high AUM. Don't think it's tested at max power though???
http://www.copters.com/pilot/hvcurve.html
).IF you are inside the H/V curve (iaw your FLM) then you are going to CRASH the helo if your power plant(s) stop working.
This means that the average pilot will bend his/her helo and maybe more. It means just that:
You will NOT have time to recover the situation (to a controlled autorotation) before striking the ground. You might crash more gently if you are into wind or taking off or cruising or doing the samba! but you WILL CRASH
That is the definition of the H/V curve:
"In the event a power plant fails in a single engine helo, the average pilot with average reactions will not have sufficient height to recover the a/c to a safe autorotational profile."
If you start 'pursuading' newbies that there are some sexy little tricks of the trade to avoid any pain and suffering whilst INSIDE the dead man's curve.....they will end up, just that
Oldbeefer: I agree: the curve is tested at high AUM. Don't think it's tested at max power though???
http://www.copters.com/pilot/hvcurve.html
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 3rd Jan 2005 at 19:08.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a relative newbie, I think Jellycopter's comment re the accuracy of the ASI when the wind is off the centre line of the pitot is very relevant. Although we are all taught about compass errors etc, the pitot error is never gone into in any depth. Consequently I for one sort of automatically assume that the ASI is always correct and fly by it, although if I stop to think about it that is obviously not the case. As Jellycopter said, it could lead to some interesting arrivals at the bottom of a crosswind descent.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jellycopter
Thanks for your reply. My instructor taught me to maintain an indicated airspeed to help lessen the chance of entering vortex ring, which at 1000' is not the end of the world but at the end of an approach could possibly ruin the day. I suppose so long as I am happy with the exciting bit at the end it's ok. I can't ask him for his comments as sadly he is no longer with us and there are no current instructors on type. It's an ex. Army machine so apart from my friend (not ex. mil.) who is the only other person current on type, all the people that flew the type for a living have not been current for about 35 to 40 years.
[email protected]
I see exactly what you mean. I suppose it's a "what's best for what type" thing. My machine has no verticle stabaliser (as a matter of fact it has no horizontal either) so the want to weathercock is less. It also has a large diameter tail rotor (6 feet) for a small machine so when you off load it right at the very end when you need it you get a very comforting surge of power. Possibly these two things combined make it the best idea to keep the wind on the left.
many thanks.
Thanks for your reply. My instructor taught me to maintain an indicated airspeed to help lessen the chance of entering vortex ring, which at 1000' is not the end of the world but at the end of an approach could possibly ruin the day. I suppose so long as I am happy with the exciting bit at the end it's ok. I can't ask him for his comments as sadly he is no longer with us and there are no current instructors on type. It's an ex. Army machine so apart from my friend (not ex. mil.) who is the only other person current on type, all the people that flew the type for a living have not been current for about 35 to 40 years.
[email protected]
We know the fuselage wants to weathercock into wind and pedal is required to hold it out of wind - in your aircraft the right pedal required to combat a left crosswind would mean you would reach your power limit sooner than if you were using left pedal to combat a right crosswind.
many thanks.
Skeeter,
There's a very good Army QHI at Shawbury (if he's still there....I left a couple of years ago now) who used to display the Skeeter for the Army Air Corps. I'm certain he's the kind of guy who would relish getting his hands on one again and would probably be glad to offer some advice and top-tips in return. If you're interested, I'll try and put you both in touch. If it works out, maybe you'd let me get my hands on it aswell
J
There's a very good Army QHI at Shawbury (if he's still there....I left a couple of years ago now) who used to display the Skeeter for the Army Air Corps. I'm certain he's the kind of guy who would relish getting his hands on one again and would probably be glad to offer some advice and top-tips in return. If you're interested, I'll try and put you both in touch. If it works out, maybe you'd let me get my hands on it aswell
J
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skeeter, with an underpowered machine, I think it's even more important to keep the wind on the correct side. There is some weathervaning tendency with any helicopter, and counteracting that requires power from the tail rotor, which subtracts power from the main rotor. With the wind on your left side, you need more right pedal to keep the nose straight, thus you're using more power, and come closer to reaching torque or engine limits, or even having an exceedance of some sort. It's not always possible to keep the wind on the correct side, but given a choice, I always do it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLSNightPilot
Thanks for that. I'll try various approaches in the open and monitor the differences.
jellycopter
I think I may have met him back in about 1996 at Weston Heli Days. It would be nice to make contact, could you let me have his no. via a PM?
Kind Rgds.
Thanks for that. I'll try various approaches in the open and monitor the differences.
jellycopter
I think I may have met him back in about 1996 at Weston Heli Days. It would be nice to make contact, could you let me have his no. via a PM?
Kind Rgds.
Interesting reading, but a few things come to mind:
1 - It seems everyone seems hugely concerned about the H/V curve, and the shaded 'avoid' area. (where ag, mustering and sling pilots live just about all day long...)
In my opinion, for this type of approach you simply have to accept that you will be inside the H/V curve for a fair period of time. The chances of the engine failing during this period are FAR less than the pilot flying a bad approach and winding up in VRS or running out of power at the bottom and hitting hard. Prioritise your risk: Why fly an approach profile to try and stay out of the H/V curve (and minimise an already minimal risk) while doing so MAY greatly increase the far more significant possibility of VRS or having insufficient power available? Be aware of the H/V curve and don't fly in it if you don't have to, but don't be hung up on it.
2 - Second big school of thought is unloading the tail rotor by having the crosswind on the appropriate side.
While I don't disagree with the concept, you shouldn't be flying this approach under the given conditions if you don't have sufficient power available, regardless of where the crosswind is from. So why be concerned about unloading your tail rotor and in doing so select an approach path that may in fact be less suitable due to obstacles, angle, head wind component or forced landing areas? (As an aside: Say you have the wind from the left to help reduce TR demand (non French). IF the engine does happen to let go, its going to yaw left and into the wind. While this might seem great, you are going to end up completely crossed up to the original approach path, in auto sideways with a new view, close to the ground and trying to work a new plan with no time and little speed. Try it (with an instructor): set up high with very little forward speed, lots of power and a brisk left crosswind and chop the throttle. It will give you an idea of how pear shaped you can get.)
3 - No one has talked about doing an in flight power check to assure you have power available to do this approach at the time.
Yes, check the performance graphs. But what if the ambient conditions are different, or you've got an extra person on board etc? I strongly suggest to do your homework and develop an in flight procedure that will fairly accurately tell you what your HIGE and HOGE power required will be under the conditions. Make sure you've got what you need to do the job.
I personally don't like the idea of an approach to a point and then descend vertically, unless the area is so confined that you have no other choice. Aside from the increased risk of obstacle strikes, it will demand more power than flying a constant, albeit steep, angle all the way to the ground. No problem IF you have HOGE power available.
It takes less power to descend than it does to hold height for a given speed, and if you hold your angle to a ground effect hover you will always fly the approach with less power.
As a general rule with all other factors equal, I would take the best line in that gave me the shallowest angle within the confines of acceptable wind and fly a constant angle approach all the way to the hover.
An approach angle is a combination of ROD (towards the ground) and forward speed (over the ground). So if you have to do it crosswind or downwind, then make sure you hold your angle, keep it slow by reference to ground speed and your ROD won't be a problem.
All this ASI talk, how then do you make an approach if your ASI has failed?
That's gotta be the longest ramble I've done, hope it makes sense!
1 - It seems everyone seems hugely concerned about the H/V curve, and the shaded 'avoid' area. (where ag, mustering and sling pilots live just about all day long...)
In my opinion, for this type of approach you simply have to accept that you will be inside the H/V curve for a fair period of time. The chances of the engine failing during this period are FAR less than the pilot flying a bad approach and winding up in VRS or running out of power at the bottom and hitting hard. Prioritise your risk: Why fly an approach profile to try and stay out of the H/V curve (and minimise an already minimal risk) while doing so MAY greatly increase the far more significant possibility of VRS or having insufficient power available? Be aware of the H/V curve and don't fly in it if you don't have to, but don't be hung up on it.
2 - Second big school of thought is unloading the tail rotor by having the crosswind on the appropriate side.
While I don't disagree with the concept, you shouldn't be flying this approach under the given conditions if you don't have sufficient power available, regardless of where the crosswind is from. So why be concerned about unloading your tail rotor and in doing so select an approach path that may in fact be less suitable due to obstacles, angle, head wind component or forced landing areas? (As an aside: Say you have the wind from the left to help reduce TR demand (non French). IF the engine does happen to let go, its going to yaw left and into the wind. While this might seem great, you are going to end up completely crossed up to the original approach path, in auto sideways with a new view, close to the ground and trying to work a new plan with no time and little speed. Try it (with an instructor): set up high with very little forward speed, lots of power and a brisk left crosswind and chop the throttle. It will give you an idea of how pear shaped you can get.)
3 - No one has talked about doing an in flight power check to assure you have power available to do this approach at the time.
Yes, check the performance graphs. But what if the ambient conditions are different, or you've got an extra person on board etc? I strongly suggest to do your homework and develop an in flight procedure that will fairly accurately tell you what your HIGE and HOGE power required will be under the conditions. Make sure you've got what you need to do the job.
I personally don't like the idea of an approach to a point and then descend vertically, unless the area is so confined that you have no other choice. Aside from the increased risk of obstacle strikes, it will demand more power than flying a constant, albeit steep, angle all the way to the ground. No problem IF you have HOGE power available.
It takes less power to descend than it does to hold height for a given speed, and if you hold your angle to a ground effect hover you will always fly the approach with less power.
As a general rule with all other factors equal, I would take the best line in that gave me the shallowest angle within the confines of acceptable wind and fly a constant angle approach all the way to the hover.
An approach angle is a combination of ROD (towards the ground) and forward speed (over the ground). So if you have to do it crosswind or downwind, then make sure you hold your angle, keep it slow by reference to ground speed and your ROD won't be a problem.
All this ASI talk, how then do you make an approach if your ASI has failed?
That's gotta be the longest ramble I've done, hope it makes sense!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coyote- excellent post! You describe exactly how the professional pilot "approaches" such a situation (no pun intended). And you're right, it's all about priorities- don't focus or obsess on one thing to the exclusion (or detriment) of others. And I agree with you totally about the H-V curve. What I disagree with is pilots who convey the attitude that the chart may be disregarded merely because they are landing, or that it does not apply to the landing mode. To me, those are dangerous mindsets.
My experience has shown me that some low-time pilots really don't know how to make a true confined-area approach. Oh, they know the theories, and can do a passable steep approach to an airport. But ask them to go out and actually put the bird into a small site with obstacles around, maybe not great forced-landing areas on the way in *and* a crosswind to boot and...well...sometimes their improvisational skills leave something to be desired. Why? Simple lack of experience. Or maybe they get in a hurry and don't take enough time to think things through. We who do it for a living get ourselves into such situations as a matter of course, and we get proficient at them because we have to.
Like you, I would advise against an "EMS-type" of approach in which the pilot comes to a high hover with a subsequent vertical descent. If the site is *that* tight, I'd think very seriously about whether I need to be going in there (somebody would have to be bleeding). To my thinking, a constant-angle approach (even if the course over the ground varies) is much better and safer...more stable and controllable. Plus, you don't have to mess with the HOGE capabilites of your ship.
Helicopters can make very safe, very steep, very controllable approaches. They do not have to be autorotative if you keep the RoD and airspeed in check. Keep it above ETL in most helicopters and you'll be fine. The beauty of- and the problem with- flying helicopters is that when you operate off-airport there are no hard-and-fast rules. You have to make it up as you go along based on many factors (the aforementioned site size, obstacles, forced-landing areas, noise-sensitive areas, wind, load, OAT, how you're feeling that day...). You use your cumulative amassed knowledge and experience and do the best you can.
My experience has shown me that some low-time pilots really don't know how to make a true confined-area approach. Oh, they know the theories, and can do a passable steep approach to an airport. But ask them to go out and actually put the bird into a small site with obstacles around, maybe not great forced-landing areas on the way in *and* a crosswind to boot and...well...sometimes their improvisational skills leave something to be desired. Why? Simple lack of experience. Or maybe they get in a hurry and don't take enough time to think things through. We who do it for a living get ourselves into such situations as a matter of course, and we get proficient at them because we have to.
Like you, I would advise against an "EMS-type" of approach in which the pilot comes to a high hover with a subsequent vertical descent. If the site is *that* tight, I'd think very seriously about whether I need to be going in there (somebody would have to be bleeding). To my thinking, a constant-angle approach (even if the course over the ground varies) is much better and safer...more stable and controllable. Plus, you don't have to mess with the HOGE capabilites of your ship.
Helicopters can make very safe, very steep, very controllable approaches. They do not have to be autorotative if you keep the RoD and airspeed in check. Keep it above ETL in most helicopters and you'll be fine. The beauty of- and the problem with- flying helicopters is that when you operate off-airport there are no hard-and-fast rules. You have to make it up as you go along based on many factors (the aforementioned site size, obstacles, forced-landing areas, noise-sensitive areas, wind, load, OAT, how you're feeling that day...). You use your cumulative amassed knowledge and experience and do the best you can.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotordog
I couldn`t agree more Rotordog. However in the UK the CAA in their wisdom won`t allow you to conduct any "off airfield" training during your PPL. Students never therefore get to fly proper confined area ops during their course (unless the airfield has one).
Most of the time it has to be simulated by the instructor (ie:imagine a big tree
in front of the landing site). Which to me doesn`t make sense, as when they get their shiny new PPL they can go off and land in their back garden(size and location permitting)
My experience has shown me that some low-time pilots really don't know how to make a true confined-area approach. Oh, they know the theories, and can do a passable steep approach to an airport. But ask them to go out and actually put the bird into a small site with obstacles around, maybe not great forced-landing areas on the way in *and* a crosswind to boot and...well...sometimes their improvisational skills leave something to be desired.
Most of the time it has to be simulated by the instructor (ie:imagine a big tree
in front of the landing site). Which to me doesn`t make sense, as when they get their shiny new PPL they can go off and land in their back garden(size and location permitting)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 5 nM S of TNT, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's very true. So what you have to do post PPL is to teach yourself slowly. The problem is made worse by the fact that many self fly hire operators will reputedly not allow hirers to land off airfields, so they never get the chance to learn and practice. Of course, if you can afford it you just buy a helicopter yourself and do whatever you want. My "confined area" during PPL training was the top surface" of an old WW2 pillbox. Not very confined perhaps, but it didn't half concentrate the mind to have to land on the thing.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: canada
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unless i've mis-read the replys to your post, there is one thing nobody else has mentioned yet. You mention trees as one of the limiting factors, how dense of trees, if they are dense enough to block the wind you will loose any advantge the wind gave you (you are still in effect flying even at zero ground speed) as you descend below the canopy.
you will now need a larger amount of power to compensate for the no-wind descent
this power requirement is immediate if you are to stay out of trouble and maintain your descent rate
too close to the trees can also give you a down-draft
my only advise is have your power fully developed early during the descent (if too much, it's easy to let some off) check what you have left, if you feel you would not be able to stop a no wind descent, fly away, if you have enough power left, and the approach feel stable and good, be ready when you descent below the canopy.
(of course if the canopy or trees are NOT dense enough to block all wind, save all the wind i've used here for a time when there is a wall of trees)
you will now need a larger amount of power to compensate for the no-wind descent
this power requirement is immediate if you are to stay out of trouble and maintain your descent rate
too close to the trees can also give you a down-draft
my only advise is have your power fully developed early during the descent (if too much, it's easy to let some off) check what you have left, if you feel you would not be able to stop a no wind descent, fly away, if you have enough power left, and the approach feel stable and good, be ready when you descent below the canopy.
(of course if the canopy or trees are NOT dense enough to block all wind, save all the wind i've used here for a time when there is a wall of trees)
I am absolutely astounded that you can get a licence in the UK that entitles you to land in a confined area, without ever having gone into one in a training environment.
Isn't that one of the big reasons we fly these things, to enable us to go into places where fixed wing can't?
What about if you train for a CPL? Does the CAA allow you to do the "Real McCoy" then?
By the way, when I used to do ab-initio training, you would obviously get the student to first fly the required steep approach and vertical take off profiles at the airport until they had them down pat. Then do exactly the same thing in amongst the trees and they would ALWAYS make a pizza of it in the beginning. I used to tell them that the aircraft didn't know that the obstacles were there, and there was no difference from the aircraft's point of view to what we'd just done at the airport, but it goes to show just how much the nerves and a new environment can interfere with basic handling and decision making.
Isn't that one of the big reasons we fly these things, to enable us to go into places where fixed wing can't?
What about if you train for a CPL? Does the CAA allow you to do the "Real McCoy" then?
By the way, when I used to do ab-initio training, you would obviously get the student to first fly the required steep approach and vertical take off profiles at the airport until they had them down pat. Then do exactly the same thing in amongst the trees and they would ALWAYS make a pizza of it in the beginning. I used to tell them that the aircraft didn't know that the obstacles were there, and there was no difference from the aircraft's point of view to what we'd just done at the airport, but it goes to show just how much the nerves and a new environment can interfere with basic handling and decision making.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coyote
What I should have mentioned is the PPL training has to be carried out at a Licensed site. There are a few sites other than airfields in the UK that are licensed for training but not many. Even then they are only usually allowed to do certain excercises at the site.
So basically you are limited to airfields. Doesn`t make sense does it.
What I should have mentioned is the PPL training has to be carried out at a Licensed site. There are a few sites other than airfields in the UK that are licensed for training but not many. Even then they are only usually allowed to do certain excercises at the site.
So basically you are limited to airfields. Doesn`t make sense does it.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL training does not have to be carried out AT a licenced airfield, it has to be carried out FROM a licenced airfield. There is nothing to stop confined area training from taking place off airfield so long as you do not physically touch down, and you are obeying the rule5 etc.
Confined area is in the syllabus and must be taught realistically, not with pretend trees to fly over. You can't let a fresh PPL go off flying into his back garden when he/she has never performed a confined area landing.
Confined area is in the syllabus and must be taught realistically, not with pretend trees to fly over. You can't let a fresh PPL go off flying into his back garden when he/she has never performed a confined area landing.
Coyote - your paragraph about engine failure crosswind was incorrect - in a Gazelle or similar rotation aircraft the nose will yaw right as the engine fails ie in the same direction as the power pedal which is opposing a torque reaction that has just been turned off.
You and rotordog might not like the approach to high hover and vertical descent but it is often the only way to get into a proper confined area ie a small one. One problem with a steep approach to the forward edge of the LS is that of judging tail clearance - at least if you recce for a vertical descent you can pick suitable markers to help you. The other advantage of the 'EMS' if that is what you want to call it approach is that it is much quicker to make a fast, level approach to a hover and then descend vertically than it is to make a slow, steep approach all the way in (and you spend more time in the HV curve).
407 you are quite right about losing wind effect behind the trees which is why you shouldn't do confined area ops with limited power - HOGE plus a 10% thrust margin is recommended by Brit Mil operators for exactly this reason.
Organ donor - do any training establishments in UK have proper confined areas eg clearings in trees that they are allowed to use - in theory to land off airfield you need landowners permission and must notify the police; I suspect that is why much CA training is conducted half heartedly on airfields.
You and rotordog might not like the approach to high hover and vertical descent but it is often the only way to get into a proper confined area ie a small one. One problem with a steep approach to the forward edge of the LS is that of judging tail clearance - at least if you recce for a vertical descent you can pick suitable markers to help you. The other advantage of the 'EMS' if that is what you want to call it approach is that it is much quicker to make a fast, level approach to a hover and then descend vertically than it is to make a slow, steep approach all the way in (and you spend more time in the HV curve).
407 you are quite right about losing wind effect behind the trees which is why you shouldn't do confined area ops with limited power - HOGE plus a 10% thrust margin is recommended by Brit Mil operators for exactly this reason.
Organ donor - do any training establishments in UK have proper confined areas eg clearings in trees that they are allowed to use - in theory to land off airfield you need landowners permission and must notify the police; I suspect that is why much CA training is conducted half heartedly on airfields.
Crab,
Not incorrect at all. You will notice I was using "non French" in the example, ie counterclockwise when viewed from above.
If left crosswind is required to reduce TR demand, then left yaw will occur upon engine failure.
In a Gazelle etc you will need a right crosswind to reduce TR demand and yes, right yaw upon power failure of course.
Good point about the 'EMS' approach being quicker, and in a dedicated EMS situation you also have the advantage of a crewman keeping an eye out. But it will still require more power in my opinion, which is no problemo if you've got it. And its a pretty small area if you MUST descend vertically.
I get the feeling from the original question that Raven2 is not in a time critical situation where they would benefit from doing such an approach, and I doubt whether they have a couple of thousand horsepower up their sleeve either.
But hey, everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's!
Not incorrect at all. You will notice I was using "non French" in the example, ie counterclockwise when viewed from above.
If left crosswind is required to reduce TR demand, then left yaw will occur upon engine failure.
In a Gazelle etc you will need a right crosswind to reduce TR demand and yes, right yaw upon power failure of course.
Good point about the 'EMS' approach being quicker, and in a dedicated EMS situation you also have the advantage of a crewman keeping an eye out. But it will still require more power in my opinion, which is no problemo if you've got it. And its a pretty small area if you MUST descend vertically.
I get the feeling from the original question that Raven2 is not in a time critical situation where they would benefit from doing such an approach, and I doubt whether they have a couple of thousand horsepower up their sleeve either.
But hey, everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's!
Last edited by the coyote; 6th Jan 2005 at 15:59.
Probably my biggest concern is inexperience in confined area. I have often been less than impessed as an examiner when examining PPL's.
After all what is the ppl going to do with his brand new licence yup take it home. Realistically CA is done at my place starting with small fields ending up in clearings in the woods. You only need land owners permission if you touch down. Providing you are 500 ft away from person, structures vessels etc - no problem ! Also I think one may be infringing the law if one landed - definition thing of stsrting and ending from a licenced field !
Instructors out there please teach your PPL's proper confined areas - thats what the damed thing was designed to do !!!!!
After all what is the ppl going to do with his brand new licence yup take it home. Realistically CA is done at my place starting with small fields ending up in clearings in the woods. You only need land owners permission if you touch down. Providing you are 500 ft away from person, structures vessels etc - no problem ! Also I think one may be infringing the law if one landed - definition thing of stsrting and ending from a licenced field !
Instructors out there please teach your PPL's proper confined areas - thats what the damed thing was designed to do !!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
organ donor
I used to train from Cranfield where we had approval to conduct confined area at a site away from the airfield. (area Alpha if anybody remembers) From what I have heard now the approval had been taken away as it was not licensed. (the caa took the approval away).
I may be wrong and stand to be corrected.
I used to train from Cranfield where we had approval to conduct confined area at a site away from the airfield. (area Alpha if anybody remembers) From what I have heard now the approval had been taken away as it was not licensed. (the caa took the approval away).
I may be wrong and stand to be corrected.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no problem with teaching confined area "landings" off airfield - so long as you don't touch down, and you follow all the relevant rules, you are'nt doing anything wrong.
Crab : There is no requirement to inform the police when landing at a confined site, landowners permission is needed if touching down, but thats not allowed when training.
I would be more concerned about not teaching the student correctly.
Crab : There is no requirement to inform the police when landing at a confined site, landowners permission is needed if touching down, but thats not allowed when training.
I would be more concerned about not teaching the student correctly.