Heli down at Sheffield?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heli down at Sheffield?
Saw a call on the 999 screens late yesterday afternoon for a helicopter crash at Sheffield Airport. Belive it was two people walking wounded. Anybody heard any more?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A member on another forum reports that what was to be an auto with power recovery quickly, and I would guess unintentionally, turned into an EOL when the power failed to come in - landed on soggy ground and subsequently rolled over. Also reports of a cut for one fellow and x-rays for the other.
Hope everyone is ok.
Hope everyone is ok.
Is this not , maybe, another case of the practicing of autos actually causes more destruction, more fatalaties, and higher insurance for everyone ? maybe engines are now reliable enough to take autos out of the Top 5 procedures during training. Maybe not , but i have been ,on and off, in the industry for nearly 30 years and all the full EOL,s that i am aware of amongst all my friends and employees were in Bell 47 s back in the 70,s !! If a reduction in the amount of EOL training knocked 10% off my premiums I would be very happy 
Before i get mauled by experts, how many more helis do people think have been trashed practicing EOL as against for real ? I would guess it is at least 10:1 having said that they are good fun !!!!!!!!!!
ps i am told they do not do EOL training any more in Russia for just this reason , that may be B*****ks ...
Before i get mauled by experts, how many more helis do people think have been trashed practicing EOL as against for real ? I would guess it is at least 10:1 having said that they are good fun !!!!!!!!!!ps i am told they do not do EOL training any more in Russia for just this reason , that may be B*****ks ...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe, another case of the practicing of autos actually causes more destruction, more fatalaties, and higher insurance for everyone ? maybe engines are now reliable enough to take autos out of the Top 5 procedures during training
but it is a really good reminder to instructors, that if you are going to practice an autorotation to a power recovery, the site you choose MUST MUST MUST be suitable for a full down!!!!
landed on soggy ground
cl12pv2s
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree to an extent with Nigelh as regards the cost/benefit of practice autorotations.
I appreciate this is slightly off topic as I understand this was an unintentional EOL, however with regards to intentional EOL:
I find myself agreeing with the decision by the CAA last year to remove taught EOL as a compulsory item of the PPL syllabus, whatever the motive for change was
Provided a student knows how to enter autorotation, arrives at flare height, with airspeed, and attempts some form of flare and levels before touchdown they will walk ( limp
) away.
And that is ALL that matters; machines can be replaced, people can not. This can all be adequately taught in a power recovery autorotation.
Completing the last 8 feet without damaging the aircraft is little more than a party trick that has the capacity to go expensively wrong very quickly. This is not worth the risk at PPL level; instructor demonstration is sufficient.
All IMHO
Without any prejudice to the instructor, a valid reminder made by cl12pv2s - there was a similar but more serious incident in Queensland I recall.
Hope for a speedy recovery for all parties involved
I appreciate this is slightly off topic as I understand this was an unintentional EOL, however with regards to intentional EOL:
I find myself agreeing with the decision by the CAA last year to remove taught EOL as a compulsory item of the PPL syllabus, whatever the motive for change was
Provided a student knows how to enter autorotation, arrives at flare height, with airspeed, and attempts some form of flare and levels before touchdown they will walk ( limp
) away.And that is ALL that matters; machines can be replaced, people can not. This can all be adequately taught in a power recovery autorotation.
Completing the last 8 feet without damaging the aircraft is little more than a party trick that has the capacity to go expensively wrong very quickly. This is not worth the risk at PPL level; instructor demonstration is sufficient.
All IMHO
Without any prejudice to the instructor, a valid reminder made by cl12pv2s - there was a similar but more serious incident in Queensland I recall.
Hope for a speedy recovery for all parties involved
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 85
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I agree with the CAA decision not to require an engine off landing on the PPL/H skill test, (an acceptance of the reality), they are still supposed to be demonstrated and followed through during the course.
An unfortunate side effect though is that people pursuing the modular route to CPL/H inevitably tend to arrive at the modular course phase with little if any ability to repeatably do EOL's. Worse, they also often have the firm conviction that they are difficult and dangerous. As EOL's ARE a requirement for the 170A and/or the CPL/H skill test, a fair amount if time then has to be expended teaching them.
Another secondary problem is that people presenting themselves for an instructor course in the minimum hours are also unlikely to have great confidence in their abiity to fly them, let alone demonstrate or teach them.
As to flared recoveries to the hover: The snag is that in reality, the technique as generally flown is not the same as in an EOL, and if the engine doesn't respond when the lever is raised, you are going to be a bit high and short of RRPM, at least in the R22.
An unfortunate side effect though is that people pursuing the modular route to CPL/H inevitably tend to arrive at the modular course phase with little if any ability to repeatably do EOL's. Worse, they also often have the firm conviction that they are difficult and dangerous. As EOL's ARE a requirement for the 170A and/or the CPL/H skill test, a fair amount if time then has to be expended teaching them.
Another secondary problem is that people presenting themselves for an instructor course in the minimum hours are also unlikely to have great confidence in their abiity to fly them, let alone demonstrate or teach them.
As to flared recoveries to the hover: The snag is that in reality, the technique as generally flown is not the same as in an EOL, and if the engine doesn't respond when the lever is raised, you are going to be a bit high and short of RRPM, at least in the R22.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that this could result in those going on to CPL/FI having less confidence in the procedure. However, it is simply no longer compulsory to teach EOL. This therefore places the onus on the instructor to assess the student's aspirations and tailor the training accordingly. In reality, in excess of 90% of students will be aiming, and stopping, at PPL level.
We all know that there is an awful lot to cram into a short space of time in the PPL syllabus, and people's bank-balances mean each hour really needs to count. Often the amount of time it takes to finesse a low hour, pre-PPL student to be fully competent to demonstrate an EOL is disproportionate to the benefit it confers to the student. They can be safe an awfully long time before they are safe *to not break the aircraft* during an auto.
Any type tests must include a student demonstration of an EOL. As many PPL students go on to type rate to other machines soon after their licences, this makes a convenient point to focus on the more tricky procedures such as an EOL.
Yes, power recoveries can go wrong, but my initial discussion point was one of cost/benefit. By intentionally attempting an EOL, you are opening yourself up to a greater risk of it all going pear-shaped than if you are intending a power recovery which may result in ground contact, which in turn may go pear-shaped. There will always be a degree of artificiality in emergency training, and I think that has to be accepted.
We all know that there is an awful lot to cram into a short space of time in the PPL syllabus, and people's bank-balances mean each hour really needs to count. Often the amount of time it takes to finesse a low hour, pre-PPL student to be fully competent to demonstrate an EOL is disproportionate to the benefit it confers to the student. They can be safe an awfully long time before they are safe *to not break the aircraft* during an auto.
Any type tests must include a student demonstration of an EOL. As many PPL students go on to type rate to other machines soon after their licences, this makes a convenient point to focus on the more tricky procedures such as an EOL.
Yes, power recoveries can go wrong, but my initial discussion point was one of cost/benefit. By intentionally attempting an EOL, you are opening yourself up to a greater risk of it all going pear-shaped than if you are intending a power recovery which may result in ground contact, which in turn may go pear-shaped. There will always be a degree of artificiality in emergency training, and I think that has to be accepted.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here but soon to be there!
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep,
I'm inclined to agree. Ask a very large Florida based helo training academy how they're feeling having lost four helicopters in EOL & Power recovery training in as many months.
Downright Aft
I'm inclined to agree. Ask a very large Florida based helo training academy how they're feeling having lost four helicopters in EOL & Power recovery training in as many months.
Downright Aft
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 85
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downright aft
Re large school in Florida losing 4 helicopters in EOL and power recovery training. I wonder whether that is making my point about instructors not being confident about the process because they didn't do many in their training. If the bird gets broke, in the end it is down to the instructor.
Re large school in Florida losing 4 helicopters in EOL and power recovery training. I wonder whether that is making my point about instructors not being confident about the process because they didn't do many in their training. If the bird gets broke, in the end it is down to the instructor.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then one can argue that they shouldn't have been passed as instructors?
Different things are expected of the pilot depending on what level they are at. Flogging EOLs all through the early days of training because one out of ten will go on to be an instructor seems a little impractical.
Maybe accept that less time will be spent on them at PPL level, and consequently slightly more time on them at CPL and FI level?
Again, just my very humble opinion
Different things are expected of the pilot depending on what level they are at. Flogging EOLs all through the early days of training because one out of ten will go on to be an instructor seems a little impractical.
Maybe accept that less time will be spent on them at PPL level, and consequently slightly more time on them at CPL and FI level?
Again, just my very humble opinion
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here but soon to be there!
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...a/K_0216_N.txt
One of the four! The rest are all there to be found
DA
One of the four! The rest are all there to be found
DA
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Missouri, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same argument is battled in the fixed-wing world over spin training. For the record I am against mandatory spin training. And there is a lot of required training to avoid getting into spins, so that makes this a bit different.
But I have to respectfully disagree with you gents on this subject. It is comforting to know that should the engine quit in the R22 I'm confident that I could set it down safely, especially as a low-time pilot. All because of the mandatory training. Without the training, should the engine quit 1) I would panic like you wouldn't believe and 2) I am absolutely convinced I would be hamburger.
With that said, at this point I'm only practicing them with the CFI by my side and that's not likely to change until I have many more hours. And he would be the first to kick my tail if I tried practicing anything over unsuitable terrain!
But I have to respectfully disagree with you gents on this subject. It is comforting to know that should the engine quit in the R22 I'm confident that I could set it down safely, especially as a low-time pilot. All because of the mandatory training. Without the training, should the engine quit 1) I would panic like you wouldn't believe and 2) I am absolutely convinced I would be hamburger.
With that said, at this point I'm only practicing them with the CFI by my side and that's not likely to change until I have many more hours. And he would be the first to kick my tail if I tried practicing anything over unsuitable terrain!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gerhardt are you referring to practicing autorotation, or practicing what us brits refer to as Engine Off Landings, emphasis on the landing - ie a full down auto, no recovery at flare height?
IIRC (and its been some time since I was in the US) EOLs only have to be demonstrated by the examinee at CFI level?
IIRC (and its been some time since I was in the US) EOLs only have to be demonstrated by the examinee at CFI level?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Missouri, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about that, I was referring to autos. I'm confusing my terms here, as my CFI refers to EOL synonymously with autos. It looks like I've stubbed my toe on this, as I don't see the need for a PPL to perfect full-downs.
Thanks for correcting me gently.
Thanks for correcting me gently.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all, Gerhardt, I was merely clarifying rather than trying to correct you.
Different terminology is always a problem, particularly on international forums
Settling with power / Vortex ring
Translating tendency / Tail rotor drift
EOL / Full Down Auto
To name just a few
Different terminology is always a problem, particularly on international forums
Settling with power / Vortex ring
Translating tendency / Tail rotor drift
EOL / Full Down Auto
To name just a few
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructors should still be as confident and competent in the procedure as it is only the compulsory requirement to teach EOLs that has been removed from the syllabus. Therefore an instructor can still opt to teach the EOL. And if not, they are still expected to demonstrate EOL with student follow through. So I can't see instructor standards falling.
R22s are very crashy-worthy machines with a large margin to safely walk away from an engine failure, which thankfully is very rare on type. The problem is, like modern cars the R22 has been designed to sacrifice itself to save the occupants which means the margin to walk away and not bend the aircraft is significantly reduced.
The downtime, loss of earnings, potential loss of students, insurance excesses and bad publicity that a school has to endure when an EOL goes wrong is not to be underestimated IMHO.
R22s are very crashy-worthy machines with a large margin to safely walk away from an engine failure, which thankfully is very rare on type. The problem is, like modern cars the R22 has been designed to sacrifice itself to save the occupants which means the margin to walk away and not bend the aircraft is significantly reduced.
The downtime, loss of earnings, potential loss of students, insurance excesses and bad publicity that a school has to endure when an EOL goes wrong is not to be underestimated IMHO.
HeliFirst
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lincoln & Norwich
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thats my point
"Instructors should still be as confident and competent"
but because he/she does not have to teach he/she won't be encouraged to try!! i.e.Don't risk it..
ask new PPL students awaiting skills test
How many EOLS have you been shown? = minimal if any at all
why because
"The downtime, loss of earnings, potential loss of students, insurance excesses and bad publicity that a school has to endure when an EOL goes wrong is not to be underestimated "
I agree even the R22 Can cope with EOLS
"Instructors should still be as confident and competent"
but because he/she does not have to teach he/she won't be encouraged to try!! i.e.Don't risk it..
ask new PPL students awaiting skills test
How many EOLS have you been shown? = minimal if any at all
why because
"The downtime, loss of earnings, potential loss of students, insurance excesses and bad publicity that a school has to endure when an EOL goes wrong is not to be underestimated "
I agree even the R22 Can cope with EOLS