LOOK MA, I'M FLYING A HELICOPTER !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rotorbike is right I don’t want to go into the technicalities of the rotorhead design and the problems ensuing from that design. The purpose of this thread was to determine at what point in your flight instruction your instructor turned the controls over to you the student pilot. Most of you indicated that it was within the first few minutes of the first flight. This supports the NTSBs question as to who was flying the helicopter in the Watsonville crash. But like the many theories I have postulated the determination of who was flying is just a theory. However in this case it can blemish a perfect flying history and possibly set the deceased pilot and his family open to litigation. Instead of the NTSB being the only participant in the investigation they allow Robinson to participate as the expert witness. That was the main thrust of the article that the paragraph was taken from. A conflict of interest.
------------------
The Cat
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
I got the controls after a short period, one at at time. Very careful assessment, reasonable.
Later in my training it became clear that being a big fellow I unconsciously overpowered instructional intervention to some extent once or twice. Lever, and no problem once control was formally handed over.
Instructor doesn't necessarily have authority even if he wants it, I'd believe a scared/frozen student surely could cause mast bumping in an extreme case!
Later in my training it became clear that being a big fellow I unconsciously overpowered instructional intervention to some extent once or twice. Lever, and no problem once control was formally handed over.
Instructor doesn't necessarily have authority even if he wants it, I'd believe a scared/frozen student surely could cause mast bumping in an extreme case!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I realised that you only wanted the information to be used against the R22. But ultimately my stories comes back at about the same as everyone else.
I can't remember far enough back to recall everything about my first R22 flight. I do remember a ground briefing and then a flight. I don't remember touching the controls at a low level in the initial climb but may have followed the controls during that and the final descent. Total flight about 30 minutes, total time about an hour.
As an instructor I had the constrants of the SFAR over me and that made the procedure different as it told you what you must do and still does. Firstly before flight you must instruct the student on the controls, how each works and caution them not to overcontrol. Finally, personally I would make them aware that if the instructor asks for the controls then they are to be released.
I never had a problem in letting the person follow through with a light touch of the controls from the beginning but do know of smaller individuals that disliked this till at altitude. The first full touch or grip of the controls would be at about 1000 feet. The flight would then consist of a series of left turns until you arrived back at the airfield. Then a descent with the student following the controls. We just had a set route of 0.4 flight time. Fly 0.5 and you did the flight for free!!!
This would finish with the instructor landing it with the student again following.
If at any time you felt the student freeze or move in the incorrect direction then the R22 is a perfect aircraft to regain control as along with an instruction of 'my controls' you were able to pull down on the T-bar and place the cyclic in a completely alien position. So regaining full control. A student would let go when the cyclic moved up 4 inches especially with a swift tug and a loud command.
Personally I never let go of the collective and followed through on the cyclic for the duration of the flight. If you place your hand around the cyclic then it allowed the student an inch of movement in all directions before the controls became yours again. Basicly you leave your hand around the cyclic but don't touch it.
I can see where you are coming from but feel a first flight in a 300 would be worse to wrestle back control.
Now if the student was to put a completely wrong input in and place the aircraft into a situation of danger without the instructor being near the controls then I can't answer that and unfortunately neither can you or the NTSB.
Maybe there is a situation of complacency from a high time helicopter instructor with a high time fixed wing pilot. Or just the high time helicopter instructor.
I can't answer that as I wasn't a career instuctor just an hour builder that watched carefully.
I can't remember far enough back to recall everything about my first R22 flight. I do remember a ground briefing and then a flight. I don't remember touching the controls at a low level in the initial climb but may have followed the controls during that and the final descent. Total flight about 30 minutes, total time about an hour.
As an instructor I had the constrants of the SFAR over me and that made the procedure different as it told you what you must do and still does. Firstly before flight you must instruct the student on the controls, how each works and caution them not to overcontrol. Finally, personally I would make them aware that if the instructor asks for the controls then they are to be released.
I never had a problem in letting the person follow through with a light touch of the controls from the beginning but do know of smaller individuals that disliked this till at altitude. The first full touch or grip of the controls would be at about 1000 feet. The flight would then consist of a series of left turns until you arrived back at the airfield. Then a descent with the student following the controls. We just had a set route of 0.4 flight time. Fly 0.5 and you did the flight for free!!!
This would finish with the instructor landing it with the student again following.
If at any time you felt the student freeze or move in the incorrect direction then the R22 is a perfect aircraft to regain control as along with an instruction of 'my controls' you were able to pull down on the T-bar and place the cyclic in a completely alien position. So regaining full control. A student would let go when the cyclic moved up 4 inches especially with a swift tug and a loud command.
Personally I never let go of the collective and followed through on the cyclic for the duration of the flight. If you place your hand around the cyclic then it allowed the student an inch of movement in all directions before the controls became yours again. Basicly you leave your hand around the cyclic but don't touch it.
I can see where you are coming from but feel a first flight in a 300 would be worse to wrestle back control.
Now if the student was to put a completely wrong input in and place the aircraft into a situation of danger without the instructor being near the controls then I can't answer that and unfortunately neither can you or the NTSB.
Maybe there is a situation of complacency from a high time helicopter instructor with a high time fixed wing pilot. Or just the high time helicopter instructor.
I can't answer that as I wasn't a career instuctor just an hour builder that watched carefully.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu: I have not followed all the R22 threads nor have I ever been in a R22.
In all sincereity, what point is it, about the R22 that you wish to make?
With regards to flight training it's been 20 years, but I think it was cyclic first, then collective, then anti-torque pedals, then the whole mish-mash.
IHL
In all sincereity, what point is it, about the R22 that you wish to make?
With regards to flight training it's been 20 years, but I think it was cyclic first, then collective, then anti-torque pedals, then the whole mish-mash.
IHL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu,
I tried to prove your theory, not disprove it, for both my own reasons and to do credit to your logic. It seemed to be the right way to do it.
I didn't find any evidence to support it and in a quasi-scientific way I have to go with what the evidence suggests, ie. there is nothing inherently wrong with the R22 or 44 rotor systems.
Indeed, Mast Bumping has been painfully demonstrated not to be isolated to one type only, but occurring in ALL underslung and /or teetering rotor equipped helicopters.
The R22 and 44 definately suffer from poor pilot awareness of the risks low or negative 'G' (Still!) and far more low time Pilots fly them than any other helicopter. That may well be the cause of more accidents of this type, for this type.
In any event, I refer all that may not have seen my recent thread on 'Mast Bumping and the danger of low or negative G' to it, as it is clear that pilots with less than sufficient knowledege of the risk are still out there.
SPS
I tried to prove your theory, not disprove it, for both my own reasons and to do credit to your logic. It seemed to be the right way to do it.
I didn't find any evidence to support it and in a quasi-scientific way I have to go with what the evidence suggests, ie. there is nothing inherently wrong with the R22 or 44 rotor systems.
Indeed, Mast Bumping has been painfully demonstrated not to be isolated to one type only, but occurring in ALL underslung and /or teetering rotor equipped helicopters.
The R22 and 44 definately suffer from poor pilot awareness of the risks low or negative 'G' (Still!) and far more low time Pilots fly them than any other helicopter. That may well be the cause of more accidents of this type, for this type.
In any event, I refer all that may not have seen my recent thread on 'Mast Bumping and the danger of low or negative G' to it, as it is clear that pilots with less than sufficient knowledege of the risk are still out there.
SPS
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: IHL and SPS and anyone that doesn't uunderstand my point about the rotorhead and the purpose of the test.
Contact me via email and I will send a copy of a letter to the NTSB. This letter explains the theory and a lot more. It also explains why you must start from the rigged neutral position when performing the test.
------------------
The Cat
Contact me via email and I will send a copy of a letter to the NTSB. This letter explains the theory and a lot more. It also explains why you must start from the rigged neutral position when performing the test.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: SPS
The rigged neutral position of the cyclic is midway between the fore and aft stops and 8.3 inches to the right of full left cyclic. This measurement is taken at the pivot point of the cyclic control horn. If that’s where you started from then I have to accept that my theory doesn’t hold water. However the test data contained in the NTSB report PB96-917003 indicates that the stick position when flying forward ranged from 68.8% right stick at 30 Knots CAS to 67.7 % at 111 Knots CAS. There were slight variations in stick position with increasing airspeed but in all cases the stick was to the right of neutral.
------------------
The Cat
The rigged neutral position of the cyclic is midway between the fore and aft stops and 8.3 inches to the right of full left cyclic. This measurement is taken at the pivot point of the cyclic control horn. If that’s where you started from then I have to accept that my theory doesn’t hold water. However the test data contained in the NTSB report PB96-917003 indicates that the stick position when flying forward ranged from 68.8% right stick at 30 Knots CAS to 67.7 % at 111 Knots CAS. There were slight variations in stick position with increasing airspeed but in all cases the stick was to the right of neutral.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Exactly! In fact it appears to me that Lu has just disproved his own theory. Lateral C of G is by far the primary determinant of lateral stick displacement.
Sorry about the apparent lack of interest, just started a new job, back in the R22 and R44. With the engines off I confirmed the 72 degree rigging you mentioned. No problems there. People are paying me to fly so I have had little opportunity to spend a lot of time fiddling with the cyclic but have found minimal subjective evidence of progressive right stick displacement.
Flies like I remember it, very fun.
I had asked questions about accident rates by country because I am well aware of the great disparity in total time of instructors south vs. north of the 49th parallel and feel this IS a factor. My current employer has a fleet of 30ish R22's and R44's and all accident here have been directly attributable to wirestrikes, vortex ring, and dumb mistakes (leaving it running on the ground unattended etc).
If I get a chance I will try to pass along more info.
When training ab initio student I always tried to brief as fully as possible prior to flight, pass along controls individually as soon as in level flight, and progress to all controls at the student's pace of learning. It is easy to cover the collective without the student knowing because your hand is hidden by your body, one's feet are always close to the pedals. The cyclic becomes a problem only when trying to instill confidence in a student and the cyclic is left visibly uncovered, then you have a noticeable reaction time to stop dangerous control excursions.
High time students (fixed or some other school) are most dangerous because the tendency is to give them more credit for skills they may not actually have.
Later...
Sorry about the apparent lack of interest, just started a new job, back in the R22 and R44. With the engines off I confirmed the 72 degree rigging you mentioned. No problems there. People are paying me to fly so I have had little opportunity to spend a lot of time fiddling with the cyclic but have found minimal subjective evidence of progressive right stick displacement.
Flies like I remember it, very fun.
I had asked questions about accident rates by country because I am well aware of the great disparity in total time of instructors south vs. north of the 49th parallel and feel this IS a factor. My current employer has a fleet of 30ish R22's and R44's and all accident here have been directly attributable to wirestrikes, vortex ring, and dumb mistakes (leaving it running on the ground unattended etc).
If I get a chance I will try to pass along more info.
When training ab initio student I always tried to brief as fully as possible prior to flight, pass along controls individually as soon as in level flight, and progress to all controls at the student's pace of learning. It is easy to cover the collective without the student knowing because your hand is hidden by your body, one's feet are always close to the pedals. The cyclic becomes a problem only when trying to instill confidence in a student and the cyclic is left visibly uncovered, then you have a noticeable reaction time to stop dangerous control excursions.
High time students (fixed or some other school) are most dangerous because the tendency is to give them more credit for skills they may not actually have.
Later...
Guest
Posts: n/a
We had 6 hours to manage hovering in a 206 ,and first of all was feeling separately each control and then mixing them. If you were overloaded,they only let you use pedals and collective,and when ready to, ciclic. Once you were getting like a stone,they took controls and so on. We had the solo flight after 16 hours with a hughes 300,if not you had to go home. Spanish Army procedures.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Grey Area & Helo Teacher
Grey Area you made a comment about lateral displacement of the cyclic to compensate for lateral CG which according to you would account for most if not all of the cyclic displacement referenced in the graph included in the NTSB Report. I found the graph very misleading as it did not reference how the lateral deflection in percentage of movement was measured and relative to what. Was it in reference to the neutral point of travel of the cyclic or, was it in reference to the rigged neutral position.
I will be sending a letter to one of the senior investigators at the NTSB to try and get some clarification in this matter. When and if I get a response I will publish the findings on these threads.
------------------
The Cat
Grey Area you made a comment about lateral displacement of the cyclic to compensate for lateral CG which according to you would account for most if not all of the cyclic displacement referenced in the graph included in the NTSB Report. I found the graph very misleading as it did not reference how the lateral deflection in percentage of movement was measured and relative to what. Was it in reference to the neutral point of travel of the cyclic or, was it in reference to the rigged neutral position.
I will be sending a letter to one of the senior investigators at the NTSB to try and get some clarification in this matter. When and if I get a response I will publish the findings on these threads.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu,
Normally test data is referenced to the mid point of control travel, certainly in the UK I have seen both percentage and absolute figures, but percentage is easier for comparative purposes. The graph you refer to does not show any "cliff edge" and to me does not show any hazard, the key point would be not where the cyclic is but whether the pilot can still achieve suitable lateral control.
Normally test data is referenced to the mid point of control travel, certainly in the UK I have seen both percentage and absolute figures, but percentage is easier for comparative purposes. The graph you refer to does not show any "cliff edge" and to me does not show any hazard, the key point would be not where the cyclic is but whether the pilot can still achieve suitable lateral control.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Grey Area
The graph accompanying my email was for reference only and it indicated the mid point of total travel and the rigged neutral position which is right of the mid point. Not having detailed drawings it is difficult to indicate the exact relationship between the two points.
The chart that was in the NTSB report showed the relative position of the cyclic stick in percentage of displacement to the right. If what you stated is the norm in the UK and the same reference was made in the FAA certification trials then in all cases the cyclic was well to the right of the rigged neutral position with the total percentage varying with forward airspeed.
According to the NTSB chart the percentage of displacement at 30 KCAS was 60.8%. At 90 KCAS the percentage of displacement was 59.3% and at 100 KCAS the percentage of displacement was 69.2%. A second test was run at a different density altitude with slight variations in percentage of displacement at the same air speeds.
It appears that all percentages placed the stick to the right of the rigged neutral position but at this time it is not known how much of the displacement related to compensating for lateral CG displacement and how much was due to compensating for the 18-degree offset.
I am not aware of any Robinson pilot running out of right cyclic even though at times the cyclic was displaced as much as 70.5% of right travel.
------------------
The Cat
The graph accompanying my email was for reference only and it indicated the mid point of total travel and the rigged neutral position which is right of the mid point. Not having detailed drawings it is difficult to indicate the exact relationship between the two points.
The chart that was in the NTSB report showed the relative position of the cyclic stick in percentage of displacement to the right. If what you stated is the norm in the UK and the same reference was made in the FAA certification trials then in all cases the cyclic was well to the right of the rigged neutral position with the total percentage varying with forward airspeed.
According to the NTSB chart the percentage of displacement at 30 KCAS was 60.8%. At 90 KCAS the percentage of displacement was 59.3% and at 100 KCAS the percentage of displacement was 69.2%. A second test was run at a different density altitude with slight variations in percentage of displacement at the same air speeds.
It appears that all percentages placed the stick to the right of the rigged neutral position but at this time it is not known how much of the displacement related to compensating for lateral CG displacement and how much was due to compensating for the 18-degree offset.
I am not aware of any Robinson pilot running out of right cyclic even though at times the cyclic was displaced as much as 70.5% of right travel.
------------------
The Cat
