Heli down at Sheffield?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure I agree, although I suspect there may be a degree of semantics. There is a difference between teaching, and demonstrating with student follow through. The removal of the requirement to teach the EOL does not remove the obligation to demonstrate. So any instructor that puts their student in for test with minimal if no experience of EOLs has not done their job. The wording is quite clear in the relevant Heli TrainingCom.
If any instructor feels they are unable to demonstrate an EOL to a satisfactory level, then the relevant Head of Training should address this issue.
I still maintain that completing the last 8 feet without damage to the aircraft is a party trick that is the preserve of a flight instructor who flies the procedure day in day out. That exercise has a relatively small margin for error. The student should be assessed as being able to perform said exercise whilst falling into the larger margin of not injuring the occupants, because frankly in a real emergency I do not care what happens to the machine provided the pilot and occupants are safe. I also find it quite distressing when I see people being injured whilst practicing for an event that thankfully is very rare.
To complete an EOL without damage to machine or occupants requires a level of skill that every instructor should possess. That is not a skill a PPL requires IMHO
If any instructor feels they are unable to demonstrate an EOL to a satisfactory level, then the relevant Head of Training should address this issue.
I still maintain that completing the last 8 feet without damage to the aircraft is a party trick that is the preserve of a flight instructor who flies the procedure day in day out. That exercise has a relatively small margin for error. The student should be assessed as being able to perform said exercise whilst falling into the larger margin of not injuring the occupants, because frankly in a real emergency I do not care what happens to the machine provided the pilot and occupants are safe. I also find it quite distressing when I see people being injured whilst practicing for an event that thankfully is very rare.
To complete an EOL without damage to machine or occupants requires a level of skill that every instructor should possess. That is not a skill a PPL requires IMHO
What point are you trying to make !??
Of course EVERY helicopter is " quite capable of EOL,s" !!! We are talking about whether there is any real genuine reason in this day and age to practice them. Remember the training syllabus comes from way back when helicopters DID actually go all quiet fairly often, but the new generation of engines are very reliable, hence twins crossing the atlantic. I guessed earlier that 10 helicopters are crashed practicing autos for every one crashed in the real thing, most people i have talked to say they think it could be 20 !!! Fine, practice autos in your heli but you should have to pay an insurance premium for doing so. I am looking at getting a quote for 10 - 20 helicopters of under 1m value where SPECIFICALLY they will NOT be covered for EOL,s...if the premiums are way down who wants to come in? Looking for 20% min savings, prob 500 hrs PIC min and named pilots.
Mongoose 237 Totally agree, the last few feet are not important...the Heli is insured and this is the type of claim that ShOULD be made. But how many full power loss incidents have there been in UK in last few years ? ( dont count going into auto for other reasons, usually unnecessarily!!)
Of course EVERY helicopter is " quite capable of EOL,s" !!! We are talking about whether there is any real genuine reason in this day and age to practice them. Remember the training syllabus comes from way back when helicopters DID actually go all quiet fairly often, but the new generation of engines are very reliable, hence twins crossing the atlantic. I guessed earlier that 10 helicopters are crashed practicing autos for every one crashed in the real thing, most people i have talked to say they think it could be 20 !!! Fine, practice autos in your heli but you should have to pay an insurance premium for doing so. I am looking at getting a quote for 10 - 20 helicopters of under 1m value where SPECIFICALLY they will NOT be covered for EOL,s...if the premiums are way down who wants to come in? Looking for 20% min savings, prob 500 hrs PIC min and named pilots.Mongoose 237 Totally agree, the last few feet are not important...the Heli is insured and this is the type of claim that ShOULD be made. But how many full power loss incidents have there been in UK in last few years ? ( dont count going into auto for other reasons, usually unnecessarily!!)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 85
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sometimes wonder if we disregard the psychological element of training. There is a lot to be said for students to be taken a bit beyond the minimum training standard so that the norm has no terrors.
When spin training was required, this was the big one and stalling a bit of a non event. Now the emphasis is on stall avoidance, I detect that stalling has become the bogey.
In the rotary world, now that EOL's are less emphasised, I am detecting that doing autorotations (not touchdowns) require the right omens/incantations/throwing the bones etc with possibly an unfortunate hesitation in lowering the lever if it all goes quiet.
When spin training was required, this was the big one and stalling a bit of a non event. Now the emphasis is on stall avoidance, I detect that stalling has become the bogey.
In the rotary world, now that EOL's are less emphasised, I am detecting that doing autorotations (not touchdowns) require the right omens/incantations/throwing the bones etc with possibly an unfortunate hesitation in lowering the lever if it all goes quiet.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too think the psychological side of training is frequently overlooked. All too often students have developed irrational fears of certain aspects of flying because the instructor has opted for the old-fashioned fire and brimstone approach, allowing fertile imaginations to run away with themselves, rather than spending a little more time in the classroom understanding what is going on and allowing a proper risk assessment to be made.
Nobody is saying dont do autos !! Do as many as you like, practice entry into a stable auto on every trip, find a suitable spot , aim for it , but dont do the last 10 -15 feet......thats where it will all go pear shaped and you will " hit some boggy ground, land on a bit of a slope, apply too much aft cyclic,get a sudden drop in headwind etc etc etc all the excuses that have been used over the years, but the result is always the same .....bent Heli and insurance premiums up !! Why on earth do it ?????
HeliFirst
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lincoln & Norwich
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Helicopter Instructor since '79 ..
EOLs were bread and butter!!
alot more than just a 'Party trick'
why now is it suddenly too risky??
what is going wrong??
EOLs were bread and butter!!
alot more than just a 'Party trick'
why now is it suddenly too risky??
what is going wrong??
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Expat Kiwi living in London
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, just can't agree that there is no place for EOL's in PPL(H) syllabus. (and as an aside since someone has mentioned it already, I also don't agree that spin-training has no place in PPL(A) training).
Whilst I do concur that recovery of the machine to a hover or slow speed level at 8 feet is going to likely result in a non-fatal arrival, why should PPL students not be taught EOL's properly? Granted perhaps an EOL in an R22 in nil wind is not the right time to be flying the exercise, but select your conditions and landing area - ought not the student be taught to get the flare / level / lower co-ordination correct. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it ought not to be taught even if the instructor is following through, helping correct on the controls or fine tune the technique etc. I reckon few PPL students are going to get it right simply by following through.
Spining fixed wing likewise. Recovery from incipient spin is taught. Fine. But what if through gash handling or whatever, a pilot not taught how to recover from a spin, finds himself in one. Surely it is better for him to have experienced what can be very disorientating in a controlled environment before having to deal with it in an uncontrolled environment?
I can't argue that accidents from practice EOL's will not result. But since EOL's are something many pilots will have to deal with in reality, why not give them at least some prior experience of actually landing one so that they have a chance of not wrecking their or someone else's machine should it actually occur. And experience of it reduces the fear of it - fixed wing spinning is a classic example.
Whilst I do concur that recovery of the machine to a hover or slow speed level at 8 feet is going to likely result in a non-fatal arrival, why should PPL students not be taught EOL's properly? Granted perhaps an EOL in an R22 in nil wind is not the right time to be flying the exercise, but select your conditions and landing area - ought not the student be taught to get the flare / level / lower co-ordination correct. Just because it is hard doesn't mean it ought not to be taught even if the instructor is following through, helping correct on the controls or fine tune the technique etc. I reckon few PPL students are going to get it right simply by following through.
Spining fixed wing likewise. Recovery from incipient spin is taught. Fine. But what if through gash handling or whatever, a pilot not taught how to recover from a spin, finds himself in one. Surely it is better for him to have experienced what can be very disorientating in a controlled environment before having to deal with it in an uncontrolled environment?
I can't argue that accidents from practice EOL's will not result. But since EOL's are something many pilots will have to deal with in reality, why not give them at least some prior experience of actually landing one so that they have a chance of not wrecking their or someone else's machine should it actually occur. And experience of it reduces the fear of it - fixed wing spinning is a classic example.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't advocated stopping doing them, I merely agree with the CAA that for the most part they are demonstration only with student follow through at PPL level.
A good instructor will carry out an EOL time after time without incident. The one time it goes slightly wrong however - windshear, student's unexpected response to ground rush, or any number of other variables - will you wonder if it really was a fruitful exercise in the context of who you are training or more a demonstration of the instructor's prowess? Hence the term party-trick.
It would be interesting to see some statistics - number of aircraft damaged and people injured carrying out practice EOLs, against the number of actual engine failures resulting in damage and injury.
R44s, Jetrangers, Bell 47s, Enstroms all auto a dream. H269s aren't too bad either. But the reality is most people train in the R22. Doing EOLs in an R22 is a more delicate matter, and I'm not entirely convinced its worth the risk trying to teach a pre-PPL student the procedure for what I see as very little benefit.
Does the instruction on vortex ring suffer through the student only experiencing the incipient stages thereof? How about the days when we had to demonstrate low g?
A step back, or a step forward?
Just because something has been done a particular way for a long while doesn't necessarily mean its been right all that time.
Just one man's opinion
Are they?
Do you believe there is a huge difference between a power recovery after completing a flare and levelling the aircraft, and settling it onto the ground and running on as per being taught in running landing?
I guess it also depends on what you consider teaching and what you consider demonstration with student follow through.
A good instructor will carry out an EOL time after time without incident. The one time it goes slightly wrong however - windshear, student's unexpected response to ground rush, or any number of other variables - will you wonder if it really was a fruitful exercise in the context of who you are training or more a demonstration of the instructor's prowess? Hence the term party-trick.
It would be interesting to see some statistics - number of aircraft damaged and people injured carrying out practice EOLs, against the number of actual engine failures resulting in damage and injury.
R44s, Jetrangers, Bell 47s, Enstroms all auto a dream. H269s aren't too bad either. But the reality is most people train in the R22. Doing EOLs in an R22 is a more delicate matter, and I'm not entirely convinced its worth the risk trying to teach a pre-PPL student the procedure for what I see as very little benefit.
Does the instruction on vortex ring suffer through the student only experiencing the incipient stages thereof? How about the days when we had to demonstrate low g?
A step back, or a step forward?Just because something has been done a particular way for a long while doesn't necessarily mean its been right all that time.
Just one man's opinion
But since EOL's are something many pilots will have to deal with in reality
Do you believe there is a huge difference between a power recovery after completing a flare and levelling the aircraft, and settling it onto the ground and running on as per being taught in running landing?
I guess it also depends on what you consider teaching and what you consider demonstration with student follow through.
Last edited by mongoose237; 21st Feb 2006 at 16:30.
Training stalls and spins is totally different as it can be done at altitude, why not do EOL,s in fixed wing then ??? There has been no good case put forward for continuing wrecking , mainly r22,s admittedly, by practicing them. It is pure mathematics !!! If you stop EOL,s it will save X million pounds which the insurance companies can hand back to owners by reduced premiums. My group of owners will get a greatly reduced premium ,hopefully,due to limiting the risks that insurance companies dont seem to care about!! ie Hangared,no EOL,s, named pilots with min experience,no claims bonus etc Hopefully my annual insurance of £16,000 will plummet faster than those R22,s....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Expat Kiwi living in London
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually a fixed wing PFL to land with the engine at idle IS in fact as close to being the equivalent of an EOL as is possible and is or should be something every PPL(A) student does - obviously one would fly it from or close to the overhead onto the runway. But that is now a bit off topic.
I don't for a moment disagree that reducing perceived high risk exercises ought to reduce insurance permia and all power to you if that actually pans out.
But to the extent one can disregard that financial aspect for a moment, I still don't see that it is better from a skills perspective for the majority of pilots not to have actually flown (closely supervised etc) an autorotation to touchdown...
However I don't and have never flown R22's so perhaps my view would be different as regards them...
I don't for a moment disagree that reducing perceived high risk exercises ought to reduce insurance permia and all power to you if that actually pans out.
But to the extent one can disregard that financial aspect for a moment, I still don't see that it is better from a skills perspective for the majority of pilots not to have actually flown (closely supervised etc) an autorotation to touchdown...
However I don't and have never flown R22's so perhaps my view would be different as regards them...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southern Cross do you believe that every PPL student should be taught an EOL ie be able to complete satisfactorily without damage to the aircraft through their sole manipulation of the controls (my personal definition of having been successfully taught something, not an official one!), or merely to have experienced them, know and understand the procedure, and therefore have a decent shot at one in the unlikely event that they have to do it for real?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never taken auto's all the way to the ground with any of my students and after 1500 hrs instructing I have had a good few get their PPL H's, and yet they do an auto to the ground on their test and to a man or woman they all said it was straight forward. So if they can do it for real having only ever done auto's to the hover why put the machine at risk during trainning for no reason at all.
And people say that machines like the Bell 206 and Bell 47 are great machines to do it in and I would agree but get it wrong in a 206 and thats 500 grand you just wrought off.
You can drop an R22 from 5 to 10 feet without doing it or the people in it much harm so if a student can get the machine to a spot, flair and leval at about that height than why risk taking it to the ground.........
And people say that machines like the Bell 206 and Bell 47 are great machines to do it in and I would agree but get it wrong in a 206 and thats 500 grand you just wrought off.
You can drop an R22 from 5 to 10 feet without doing it or the people in it much harm so if a student can get the machine to a spot, flair and leval at about that height than why risk taking it to the ground.........
HeliFirst
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lincoln & Norwich
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mongoose237
just my point when CRAZYBROADSWORD posted
" I have never taken auto's all the way to the ground with any of my students (after 1500 hrs instructing)"
your thoughts??
just my point when CRAZYBROADSWORD posted
" I have never taken auto's all the way to the ground with any of my students (after 1500 hrs instructing)"
your thoughts??
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in no position to pass comment, but I guess you could say CrazyBroadsword's clearly done something right as his/her students have successfully passed the quality check on training - the examiner! 
However, seeing as I presume these 1500 hours were not wholly completed since January 2005 when the change was announced, it adds little sway to either argument.
I too have spoken to many students that did their first EOL on test and despite the nerves all said it was fine. Whether that was right or wrong I guess it adds strength to the argument that it is unnecessary to teach them during the syllabus?
It certainly has been interesting seeing the spread of opinion from students, instructors and owners from around the world
However, seeing as I presume these 1500 hours were not wholly completed since January 2005 when the change was announced, it adds little sway to either argument.
I too have spoken to many students that did their first EOL on test and despite the nerves all said it was fine. Whether that was right or wrong I guess it adds strength to the argument that it is unnecessary to teach them during the syllabus?
It certainly has been interesting seeing the spread of opinion from students, instructors and owners from around the world
HeliFirst
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lincoln & Norwich
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I'll continue to fly autos to EOLs (as Instructor and Examiner).
My main concern here was for the Instructors who Sadly won't be allowed (by risk assessment) to do EOLs.
Their loss and their students too I think!
My main concern here was for the Instructors who Sadly won't be allowed (by risk assessment) to do EOLs.
Their loss and their students too I think!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My main concern here was for the Instructors who Sadly won't be allowed (by risk assessment) to do EOLs.
So with insurance and company policy permitting, instructors should still be free to demonstrate, and if desired teach, EOLs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheffield EOL
According to the AOC who operated the machine (an H300) the instructor pilot was demonstrating a full EOL to a potential buyer of a new H300CB and carried out the EOL in still wind as opposed to the minimum 10 or 12 kts required as well as landing on boggy grass. The result was pre-ordained to occur.