Full down auto's ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whirly,
Engine off landings are a required part of the syllabus for the PPL in the UK, and that does not mean having 1 demonstrated to you.
If you havent had a go at them yourself there is something wrong as YOU are supposed to demonstrate one on your GFT (now LST).
many instructors are not cleared to do them, but they should put you with someone who is,
for that 1 lesson, before I send someone solo, we will always have done an hour of engine off landings before the solo day.
a school that no longer exists at gloucester got into trouble with the CAA, for not teaching them as it is a prerequisite that the syllabus is covered and they are in the syllabus.
during your hourbuilding, I would recomend that you reguarly practice all the elements of the ppl syllabus, as in the CPL general handling test, all the same things are there only to a higher standard.
hope this helps
------------------
elpirata
Engine off landings are a required part of the syllabus for the PPL in the UK, and that does not mean having 1 demonstrated to you.
If you havent had a go at them yourself there is something wrong as YOU are supposed to demonstrate one on your GFT (now LST).
many instructors are not cleared to do them, but they should put you with someone who is,
for that 1 lesson, before I send someone solo, we will always have done an hour of engine off landings before the solo day.
a school that no longer exists at gloucester got into trouble with the CAA, for not teaching them as it is a prerequisite that the syllabus is covered and they are in the syllabus.
during your hourbuilding, I would recomend that you reguarly practice all the elements of the ppl syllabus, as in the CPL general handling test, all the same things are there only to a higher standard.
hope this helps
------------------
elpirata
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks elpirata,
That all makes a lot of sense. I thought that was the case with autos, but only found out recently. I gather the school I was at has now been told to do autos to the ground; I think this was due to something I said, all unknowing, in a conversation with someone from the CAA - long story. If I'm responsible I'm very pleased about it - should have happened long ago.
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
That all makes a lot of sense. I thought that was the case with autos, but only found out recently. I gather the school I was at has now been told to do autos to the ground; I think this was due to something I said, all unknowing, in a conversation with someone from the CAA - long story. If I'm responsible I'm very pleased about it - should have happened long ago.
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whirly - You should try and do enough so they become second nature (particularly on the Robbo) and get to a point where they actually become fun (dare I use that word). During my AFIC course I spent one entire lesson of 1.1hrs doing 15 non stop engine offs. I had trouble wiping the huge cheesy grin off my face for hours. Even during my PPL training, I remember finishing most of the last half dozen dual trips with an engine off or two (weather/fuel/weight etc permitting). However, you must, must, stay current at doing them.
Interesting thing is that when you've learnt on the Robbo and move on to say the 206, the engine offs are non events - plenty of time to brush your teeth, have a wash, comb your hair (as my old instructor/examiner would say) with none of the dramatic lever adjusting/pulling - its all very much more sedate.
Good Luck
Balance!
[This message has been edited by Balance! (edited 17 May 2001).]
Interesting thing is that when you've learnt on the Robbo and move on to say the 206, the engine offs are non events - plenty of time to brush your teeth, have a wash, comb your hair (as my old instructor/examiner would say) with none of the dramatic lever adjusting/pulling - its all very much more sedate.
Good Luck
Balance!
[This message has been edited by Balance! (edited 17 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pretty scary information being passed on here. Pilots flying helicopters who have never smacked the Asphalt..
Im sure its a matter of economics, but I can guarantee, that for those who havent and someday have too, its going to cost somebody much more..
Thanks Uncle Sam, for letting me make sparks......
Im sure its a matter of economics, but I can guarantee, that for those who havent and someday have too, its going to cost somebody much more..
Thanks Uncle Sam, for letting me make sparks......
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that at least one flying training operation in the UK abandoned their Bell 47's for R22's.
The 47's spent a major part of their life performing full auto's. They were operated for years with very few instances of any kind of damage. I believe the R22 fleet came and went very rapidly, after they kept falling apart when subjected to the exact same training environment.
Anyone care to elaborate?
The 47's spent a major part of their life performing full auto's. They were operated for years with very few instances of any kind of damage. I believe the R22 fleet came and went very rapidly, after they kept falling apart when subjected to the exact same training environment.
Anyone care to elaborate?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an instructor in the UK it really worries me that some have done very few full EOL. They are not difficult to perform in most machines.
If you have not done them or done limited ones find a school that will teach you.
Remember this manouevre is the one that will save your life !! Yes I know if you get it to a flare with little or no forward airspeed at the correct height you can bring the engine back in. BUT doing it to the ground gives you a lot of confidence not only that you can do it and get it right but the aircraft can do it as well !!
Have a safe one
If you have not done them or done limited ones find a school that will teach you.
Remember this manouevre is the one that will save your life !! Yes I know if you get it to a flare with little or no forward airspeed at the correct height you can bring the engine back in. BUT doing it to the ground gives you a lot of confidence not only that you can do it and get it right but the aircraft can do it as well !!
Have a safe one
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree all students should be taught to perform EOL's and demonstrate them to a competent standard, however What are the thoughts on the following:
How many R22 Accidents in the UK have resulted in fatalities from getting the last bit of an EOL wrong? - None as far as I am aware.
Compare that to Fatalities where they did not get the lever down within 0.9 seconds after the engine quit. There must be quite a few by now.
Any views?
How many R22 Accidents in the UK have resulted in fatalities from getting the last bit of an EOL wrong? - None as far as I am aware.
Compare that to Fatalities where they did not get the lever down within 0.9 seconds after the engine quit. There must be quite a few by now.
Any views?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good evening Balance, you point out the Eol in the 206 is a non event, I must agree with you compared to a R22, but when you practice in the 206Eol, you still have some input from the Turbine, could you tell me is it still relativly unhurried with a absolute failure of power, or is it like the same sort of speed that you get in the R44 which has a similar sized blade system, but is a lighter a/c, I hope you see what I mean!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have had the opportunity to auto our 206 once, my chief pilot stated if done right one could do an auto and your pax may not even notice the glide difference, but I question that statement ....
I felt as if there were more time available. Would that be because the 206 rotor system is not as "high-inertia" as the Robbies in terms of loss of RPM ?
(I might be off here, asking though)
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 21 May 2001).]
I felt as if there were more time available. Would that be because the 206 rotor system is not as "high-inertia" as the Robbies in terms of loss of RPM ?
(I might be off here, asking though)
[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 21 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1
"Would that be because the 206 rotor system is not as "high-inertia" as the Robbies in terms of loss of RPM?"
I think you might find the reason is the exact opposite. (Warning: I'm only a lawyer!
)
It also depends which Robbie.
There is a huge difference between the R22 and the R44 which has much heavier blades.
"Would that be because the 206 rotor system is not as "high-inertia" as the Robbies in terms of loss of RPM?"
I think you might find the reason is the exact opposite. (Warning: I'm only a lawyer!
)It also depends which Robbie.
There is a huge difference between the R22 and the R44 which has much heavier blades.
Guest
Posts: n/a
RW-1
The R-22 has a low-inertia rotor when compared to virtually all other helicopters. Low inertia means that 'I', the moment of inertia about its axis of rotation, is low. Mathematically, 'I' comes from integrating the mass times the distance squared (as you may recall, moment = mass * arm. This is similar.) In the helicopter rotor this means taking the rotor and thinking of it as a whole bunch of little pieces. Picture cutting many 1" slabs of the blade all the way from the root to the tip. If you add up the individual polar moments (mass of each times its distance from the axis of rotation squared, in this case the rotor hub), you get the moment of inertia I=mr^2. Since the mass of the rotor of the R22 is low, the moment of inertia is low. Various other helicopters put tip weights in the blades, out at the ends where the distance (remember, I = m * R^2) is great. This drastically increases their moment of inertia.
Now, recall that the rotor is absorbing power in the form of torque, which at a constant speed (rpm) means that the aerodynamic torque acting on the rotor is equal to the torque produced by the engine. Now, if the engine stops, the air is still acting against the blades but the engine isn't opposing this torque. Now the 'momentum' of the blades is all that keeps them turning. If they were weightless then air drag would stop them instantly (all assuming you don't lower the collective where effectively drag is made zero or negative in the rotational axis), but if they were made of lead or solid DU then they would spin for ages. To keep down the overall weight of the blades/helicopter, they try to use as little weight as possible, and optimize its effect by putting it at as far from the rotational axis as possible--that why you get 'tip weights'.
Here's an analogy. Consider a car is driving along at a constant speed: If the engine stops the car will coast to a stop. If there are two cars next to each other with the same external dimensions (ie, same air drag) but one weighs much more, which will go further? The heavier one will because it has more kinetic energy (KE = mass * velocity^2). Now, if we have a motorcycle and a bike, where the motorcycle has more frontal area, but is also heavier, its not so clear--the greater weight of the motorcycle might take it further or its larger size may stop it quicker due to air drag. In the Robbie, the blades and everything attached is very 'light' yet the air still acts on it. Consider it as a normal sized bike that's extremely light. If it's going along and you stop pedalling, it'll stop pretty quick--much quicker than others with extra weights attached.
Well, sorry for the long-winded response. I'm sure I might have made a mistake somewhere, as I don't have my books here, but that's the basic idea.
The R-22 has a low-inertia rotor when compared to virtually all other helicopters. Low inertia means that 'I', the moment of inertia about its axis of rotation, is low. Mathematically, 'I' comes from integrating the mass times the distance squared (as you may recall, moment = mass * arm. This is similar.) In the helicopter rotor this means taking the rotor and thinking of it as a whole bunch of little pieces. Picture cutting many 1" slabs of the blade all the way from the root to the tip. If you add up the individual polar moments (mass of each times its distance from the axis of rotation squared, in this case the rotor hub), you get the moment of inertia I=mr^2. Since the mass of the rotor of the R22 is low, the moment of inertia is low. Various other helicopters put tip weights in the blades, out at the ends where the distance (remember, I = m * R^2) is great. This drastically increases their moment of inertia.
Now, recall that the rotor is absorbing power in the form of torque, which at a constant speed (rpm) means that the aerodynamic torque acting on the rotor is equal to the torque produced by the engine. Now, if the engine stops, the air is still acting against the blades but the engine isn't opposing this torque. Now the 'momentum' of the blades is all that keeps them turning. If they were weightless then air drag would stop them instantly (all assuming you don't lower the collective where effectively drag is made zero or negative in the rotational axis), but if they were made of lead or solid DU
then they would spin for ages. To keep down the overall weight of the blades/helicopter, they try to use as little weight as possible, and optimize its effect by putting it at as far from the rotational axis as possible--that why you get 'tip weights'.Here's an analogy. Consider a car is driving along at a constant speed: If the engine stops the car will coast to a stop. If there are two cars next to each other with the same external dimensions (ie, same air drag) but one weighs much more, which will go further? The heavier one will because it has more kinetic energy (KE = mass * velocity^2). Now, if we have a motorcycle and a bike, where the motorcycle has more frontal area, but is also heavier, its not so clear--the greater weight of the motorcycle might take it further or its larger size may stop it quicker due to air drag. In the Robbie, the blades and everything attached is very 'light' yet the air still acts on it. Consider it as a normal sized bike that's extremely light. If it's going along and you stop pedalling, it'll stop pretty quick--much quicker than others with extra weights attached.
Well, sorry for the long-winded response. I'm sure I might have made a mistake somewhere, as I don't have my books here, but that's the basic idea.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You know, it was one of those days yesterday ... after I went back and reread it I knew I had it backasswards.
On a lighter note though, I received 30K into my money market from my family to wrap up my commercial and maybe even get my required flight time to nab my CFI. Things might be picking up. . .
------------------
Marc
On a lighter note though, I received 30K into my money market from my family to wrap up my commercial and maybe even get my required flight time to nab my CFI. Things might be picking up. . .
------------------
Marc
Guest
Posts: n/a
A posting above reminds me of a perfect example in Blade Weight. The AH-1S had the 540 Rotor system with the old and heavy blades and was then modified for the Kaman Blades. The difference was such that it was extremely important to know that difference in an emergency. Example a 6" cross section of the old blade weighed, I dont know, maybe 15 lbs., wheras the newer Kaman blade, same cross section was only a couple of pounds. That as an example of total weight reduction.
Difference in flight was like night and day for emergencies. Power off with the heavier blade, slow rotor decay, with the new light one, needle is going down right now. It became very interesting.
Difference in flight was like night and day for emergencies. Power off with the heavier blade, slow rotor decay, with the new light one, needle is going down right now. It became very interesting.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I did my training in the u.s. and could not get the cfi to demonstrate a touchdown auto. since then i have autorotated many different types hundreds of times onto the ground. in all types exept the r22 autos are just another manouvre and are easier to do than a precision approach in some machines. the robbie is a problem though as each auto is different even down to the fuel burn between attempts,or a little fast or a little slow, too much flare, too little flare, a massive ammount of variables. they take a bit of practice to nail and require constant practice to maintain a reasonable competency level. the fact is in a real life situation if you can maintain speed till flare height and do a reasonable flare to slow down you and your pax should walk away unscathed, after all that is the only reason to do an auto.we also dont have the good fortune to always have an airport under us. what if you are over the forest or the sea or rough terrain. helicopter engines are reliable to the point that most auto training is a waste of time.in the case of the r22 the instructor is doing most of the work and is on the controls, if he isn't he is a brave man. more robbies are written off during auto training at schools than any other accident type. wire strikes kill more pilots than any other problem yet we don't string wires across the runway and practice missing them. fuel starvation is another problem but we don't practice till the light comes on and try to make it home.go and get an endorsement in a proper helicopter and the instructor would be only too happy to do an auto i'm sure
------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow
------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow
Guest
Posts: n/a
I learnt to fly helicopters in Australia. The school didn't teach full down autos, but I was demo'ed one.
Came back to the UK, had some fun doing them myself since it's a required part of the syllabus.
I felt comfortable with the fact that in Oz I could at least take the Robbie close enough to the ground and then get it slow enough to survive. Now I feel sort of comfortable that I'd even save the airframe, but that's not my priority.
Came back to the UK, had some fun doing them myself since it's a required part of the syllabus.
I felt comfortable with the fact that in Oz I could at least take the Robbie close enough to the ground and then get it slow enough to survive. Now I feel sort of comfortable that I'd even save the airframe, but that's not my priority.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can't speak with any authority on R22 etc. I'm X-Navy (Royal) & have done full downs in Gazelles & Seakings! A must in terms of experience!
However since going 'civvy' haven't been allowed to do one at all!
I feel this is V.Bad. I fly Police machines & the places we put ourselves makes me think the more practice the better!
Unfortunately commercial operators will undertake practices not required by law, especially when they pose a risk to airframes!
If you can talk someone into doing them...DO THEM!!
However since going 'civvy' haven't been allowed to do one at all!
I feel this is V.Bad. I fly Police machines & the places we put ourselves makes me think the more practice the better!
Unfortunately commercial operators will undertake practices not required by law, especially when they pose a risk to airframes!
If you can talk someone into doing them...DO THEM!!