Mt Kelly R44 with sad loss of 4. Speculation thread
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless started a great line of thought on how to determine IF you have the power to hover, and several good rules of thumb were contributed. All good stuff, but let me pass on my favorite rule of thumb - never get into a hover where you NEED more power than you HAVE. How can you control that on a mountain approach? Easy as pie - remember that the power required only rises as your speed diminishes, and it is YOU who commands the deceleration.
Mountains are littered with helo hulks because pilots rush the approach to land by holding too much speed and then flaring it off quickly at the end, perhaps in some silly wish to be more safe regarding the HV curve. As a result they rush into a hover they can't sustain, but when it is too late to reaccelerate and cure the problem. How to avoid the dreaded fall-through at the bottom? Easy - make a slow, controlled approach, creeping in as the power comes up, watching the power rise toward the max. Determine the max by pulling it before you start the approach, and noting the torque/MP that is all you have. As you slowly reduce the approach speed, note that power rise and let alarm bells go off if you get near max power while still moving forward. If that happens, gently lower the nose and accelerate away, and don't try that approach!! Natrually, if you rush the approach, you won't see the gentle power rise as the speed is slowly reduced, and you could end up at the bottom with an armful of collective and a face full of dirt.
Mountains are littered with helo hulks because pilots rush the approach to land by holding too much speed and then flaring it off quickly at the end, perhaps in some silly wish to be more safe regarding the HV curve. As a result they rush into a hover they can't sustain, but when it is too late to reaccelerate and cure the problem. How to avoid the dreaded fall-through at the bottom? Easy - make a slow, controlled approach, creeping in as the power comes up, watching the power rise toward the max. Determine the max by pulling it before you start the approach, and noting the torque/MP that is all you have. As you slowly reduce the approach speed, note that power rise and let alarm bells go off if you get near max power while still moving forward. If that happens, gently lower the nose and accelerate away, and don't try that approach!! Natrually, if you rush the approach, you won't see the gentle power rise as the speed is slowly reduced, and you could end up at the bottom with an armful of collective and a face full of dirt.
Bladebanger
Cool bananas.
notnoz
Your an idiot. Funny though!
topendtorque
You do have a very valid point about letting the old salts help in the process. You would think it would be mandatory for ATSB to cover every aspect to the highest standard available and obviously someone with a considerable amount of operational exposure (flying of this type and environment) would be the best option in regards to that aspect.
As far as all other aspects ( forensics etc.), without knowing or having the qualifications to judge what is required of them to become an ATSB inspector I would have to assume that these guys are properly trained to do this job to a high standard. You may know more about this than me.
A crash sight would be a very hard environment to control. Generally in situations like these when an enviroment has to be kept sterile and undisturbed the legislation rules on the side of what most find ridiculous in order to achieve that. This is understandable, excluding the old salts who would know the importance of such matters and very likely able to contribute some crucial input.
The ATSB is a necessity but as you say, it could very well be in need of some practical changes.
Cool bananas.
notnoz
Your an idiot. Funny though!
topendtorque
You do have a very valid point about letting the old salts help in the process. You would think it would be mandatory for ATSB to cover every aspect to the highest standard available and obviously someone with a considerable amount of operational exposure (flying of this type and environment) would be the best option in regards to that aspect.
As far as all other aspects ( forensics etc.), without knowing or having the qualifications to judge what is required of them to become an ATSB inspector I would have to assume that these guys are properly trained to do this job to a high standard. You may know more about this than me.
A crash sight would be a very hard environment to control. Generally in situations like these when an enviroment has to be kept sterile and undisturbed the legislation rules on the side of what most find ridiculous in order to achieve that. This is understandable, excluding the old salts who would know the importance of such matters and very likely able to contribute some crucial input.
The ATSB is a necessity but as you say, it could very well be in need of some practical changes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Most of us agree that operational experience (at the grunt end i mean not just as a straight line self opiniated line pilot either military or civil regardless of their hours) is the greatest aid in investigation"
topend TQ
Mate what is your point? Accident investigators do a specialized course (which then qualifies them to conduct accident investigation). Line pilots fly on the line and Military pilots fly Miltary Aircraft, whether any of these groups have self opinions is not really relevant.
In your verbage please explain Who is most of us? Who do you represent? Operational experience gained in what? Accident investigation or flying gen? Is your grunt end experience you talk of in the area of accident investigation or are you a commentator and speculator?
B4 you begin I too am no accident investigator, although I have attended 2 major accidents in my service both of which contained multiple deaths and multiple aircraft. I have plenty of operational experience, Civil and Military flying experience and enough hours to know that at some point all of us will experience some sort of accident or incident. What determines the outcome successful or otherwise will be your experience and your training. I suspect that grunt end experience may not solve your probems. I have met many folks in this game over the last 2 decades and the ones that are good at it don't use the MSU principle (ie make **** up). They are very aware of their limitations both human and material.
IMHO
Maxee
topend TQ
Mate what is your point? Accident investigators do a specialized course (which then qualifies them to conduct accident investigation). Line pilots fly on the line and Military pilots fly Miltary Aircraft, whether any of these groups have self opinions is not really relevant.
In your verbage please explain Who is most of us? Who do you represent? Operational experience gained in what? Accident investigation or flying gen? Is your grunt end experience you talk of in the area of accident investigation or are you a commentator and speculator?
B4 you begin I too am no accident investigator, although I have attended 2 major accidents in my service both of which contained multiple deaths and multiple aircraft. I have plenty of operational experience, Civil and Military flying experience and enough hours to know that at some point all of us will experience some sort of accident or incident. What determines the outcome successful or otherwise will be your experience and your training. I suspect that grunt end experience may not solve your probems. I have met many folks in this game over the last 2 decades and the ones that are good at it don't use the MSU principle (ie make **** up). They are very aware of their limitations both human and material.
IMHO
Maxee
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxeeemum
No need to freak out good boy.
I thought the msg was clear, but for the purpose of explaining to one who seems to be only a 'straight-line' pilot (get it) I say again that OZ regs leave a lot to be desired with regard to equity for all parties.
Yes, I have only had to examine twenty and more accidents in three-an-a-bit decades of maneuvering type rotary flying, often for the purpose of getting the truth out of the driver, which often translates into putting information together to protect company and driver against spurious, unqualified (and now protected) statements.
Sure, there are some pros in the ATSB ranks, but I haven't seen one in a while. Insurance company investigators are usually much more analytical, all the more reason to allow equity of evidence presentation.
I have no idea how the regs work in these respects in other countries but if any see default back in their own country, then i may have started something for others to invoke action for protection of the flying fraternity where ever they are.
Try operating with less MAP old boy its always mush easier to push it down if its not all the way up. "old bush fable"
TET
I thought the msg was clear, but for the purpose of explaining to one who seems to be only a 'straight-line' pilot (get it) I say again that OZ regs leave a lot to be desired with regard to equity for all parties.
Yes, I have only had to examine twenty and more accidents in three-an-a-bit decades of maneuvering type rotary flying, often for the purpose of getting the truth out of the driver, which often translates into putting information together to protect company and driver against spurious, unqualified (and now protected) statements.
Sure, there are some pros in the ATSB ranks, but I haven't seen one in a while. Insurance company investigators are usually much more analytical, all the more reason to allow equity of evidence presentation.
I have no idea how the regs work in these respects in other countries but if any see default back in their own country, then i may have started something for others to invoke action for protection of the flying fraternity where ever they are.
Try operating with less MAP old boy its always mush easier to push it down if its not all the way up. "old bush fable"
TET
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with NLappos that gentle and controlled is the way ahead. However, particularly with 2 engines we tend to hold an extra 5-10kts until we call "committed". Then come to the hover. As far as we're concerned the rationale is definitely to minimise time in the avoid curve and stay SSE that little bit longer. Also make the approach to the far side of a target (if poss) to give a better chance of escaping if it all goes Pete Tong. Tend to come in a wee bit higher than normal to allow for any unforseen turb/extend the escape options. Gotta watch it in the vinegar strokes though.
Other danger of coming in too slow is of course Vortex Ring/settling with power (ticked 2 boxes of the criteria, only need that ROD to increase a bit - say, a downdraft). Granted you don't want to horse it in there and over-tq of course.
Some v.interesting mountain techniques coming out here - vmt.
SB
Other danger of coming in too slow is of course Vortex Ring/settling with power (ticked 2 boxes of the criteria, only need that ROD to increase a bit - say, a downdraft). Granted you don't want to horse it in there and over-tq of course.
Some v.interesting mountain techniques coming out here - vmt.
SB
Thread Starter
VRS/Settling with power: I would say almost a physical impossibility doing a limited power high DA approach by any pilot with co-ordination higher than an orangutan or more situational awareness than a blind and deaf sheep in a paddock of wolves. When doing such approaches, you should be right onto closure rates and descent rates, much more so than sea level run-of-the-mill type approaches that catch out the under vigilant or over familiar. i dont recall high DA being a contributing factor at all. Rather than settling with power, it is far more likely that you might settle with inufficient power!
Max and topend, I agree with parts of both of your posts. The ATSB does have some experienced and capable investigators, some of whom are considered leaders in the field on the world stage. But, like any human, they will occaisionally err and they will occaisionally come across situations in which they have limited or no experience. How then, do they find a GAURANTEED neutral to give them TOTALLY independant advice? That is the challenge.
I agree that they are well protected, and they need a certain amount of this in order to provide opinion without fear. Only through such a situation will we be able to get to the bottom of many incidents/accidents and learn something from them. On the other hand, it would be better if they publish contraary opinion in their crash comics, conduct reviews over disputed outcomes, or even answer correspondence questioning recommendations. None of which they are currently bound to do.
Max and topend, I agree with parts of both of your posts. The ATSB does have some experienced and capable investigators, some of whom are considered leaders in the field on the world stage. But, like any human, they will occaisionally err and they will occaisionally come across situations in which they have limited or no experience. How then, do they find a GAURANTEED neutral to give them TOTALLY independant advice? That is the challenge.
I agree that they are well protected, and they need a certain amount of this in order to provide opinion without fear. Only through such a situation will we be able to get to the bottom of many incidents/accidents and learn something from them. On the other hand, it would be better if they publish contraary opinion in their crash comics, conduct reviews over disputed outcomes, or even answer correspondence questioning recommendations. None of which they are currently bound to do.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick Lappos - I hope they listen to you. That is the way all pilots were supposed to be taught in UK from the 50s.There were a series of WASPs in the early 70s rushing in for crossdeck landings then 'pulling' the lever followed by a few quick rotations and some splashes. They forgot that there is only 100% Tq and if you put 90% through the mast there is not enough for the tail rotor. Those of us who had operated the type for 9 years without incident were just 'boring old farts who were out of touch'. But we did not need swimming lessons. The Wasps were retro fitted with a bigger tail rotor.
S Beefer: VR very unlikely as whatever angle you choose if you fly slower the RoD will be less. Never heard anyone have a problem.
S Beefer: VR very unlikely as whatever angle you choose if you fly slower the RoD will be less. Never heard anyone have a problem.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helmet fire
Thankyou helmet
Yes, your ideas and peer review is what I am referring to. I don't want to go too deep on a goss network but they could operate in a similar fashion as the rules for senate committees.
They could even be a statutory board of review with enough encumbants to ensure supply all over the country. After all with the environmentalists ranting of late on their pet hobbies it is indeed a rare govt minister that does not place such a vehicle between himself and the public. (protection)
Objective wish lists for site data is also wanting. E.G. One from personal experience years ago; Q. Are you sure that the T/R gearbox was not seizing up to cause the RPM loss which led to overpitching? A. Duh- didn't look at the T/R Gearbox! Both investigators were qualified engineers, not drivers.
Not criticising them, but the lack of a sound system let them down. Even so one has to often look at something for long periods of time to allow your different experiences to examine just what it is you are looking at, but one thing is paramount, all data must be recorded and objectively recorded if you don't want to be cracked off later.
TET
Yes, your ideas and peer review is what I am referring to. I don't want to go too deep on a goss network but they could operate in a similar fashion as the rules for senate committees.
They could even be a statutory board of review with enough encumbants to ensure supply all over the country. After all with the environmentalists ranting of late on their pet hobbies it is indeed a rare govt minister that does not place such a vehicle between himself and the public. (protection)
Objective wish lists for site data is also wanting. E.G. One from personal experience years ago; Q. Are you sure that the T/R gearbox was not seizing up to cause the RPM loss which led to overpitching? A. Duh- didn't look at the T/R Gearbox! Both investigators were qualified engineers, not drivers.
Not criticising them, but the lack of a sound system let them down. Even so one has to often look at something for long periods of time to allow your different experiences to examine just what it is you are looking at, but one thing is paramount, all data must be recorded and objectively recorded if you don't want to be cracked off later.
TET
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"VRS/Settling with power: I would say almost a physical impossibility doing a limited power high DA approach by any pilot with co-ordination higher than an orangutan or more situational awareness than a blind and deaf sheep in a paddock of wolves" - you might as well say that no pilot will ever have a pilot-error generated stoof, however I don't think that's the case is it?
Pofman/Helmet:
Fully concur that VR only catches the unwary (like any snag). But it's not a great leap of faith to imagine coming in slow, getting too steep and trying to correct the angle rather than o'shoot. Add the tricky perspective of the hills/extra turbulence and the potential is there. Maybe add a low-time driver to the mix and watch out.
Helmet - agree your proposed outsome of settling with insufficent power more likely!
To open another can of worms (I standby to be corrected here..): The high DA is a major player since you'll have more pitch to get the required lift = more induced flow = greater recirc at the tips + way higher AoA at the root. Since developed VR is basically about the induced flow losing the battle with ROD airflow, if you're driving a light machine like a R22/44 or similar ie with a relatively puny IF - you'll need to be more aware won't you?
Appreciate this is going a bit off-thread.
Pofman/Helmet:
Fully concur that VR only catches the unwary (like any snag). But it's not a great leap of faith to imagine coming in slow, getting too steep and trying to correct the angle rather than o'shoot. Add the tricky perspective of the hills/extra turbulence and the potential is there. Maybe add a low-time driver to the mix and watch out.
Helmet - agree your proposed outsome of settling with insufficent power more likely!
To open another can of worms (I standby to be corrected here..): The high DA is a major player since you'll have more pitch to get the required lift = more induced flow = greater recirc at the tips + way higher AoA at the root. Since developed VR is basically about the induced flow losing the battle with ROD airflow, if you're driving a light machine like a R22/44 or similar ie with a relatively puny IF - you'll need to be more aware won't you?
Appreciate this is going a bit off-thread.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gas Producer
Intrigued by this discussion . . .
Now, you've arrived at your intended landing site, and it may be higher, hotter, windier or whatever. Fly past 500' above the site at best rate of climb speed noting power required. Now pull maximum power available and note the value. Determine the power margin and if it's equal to or greater than the one you assessed on take off and climb out from your departure point then your chances will be pretty good. If not, go and land somewhere else after repeating the procedure relative to the new landing site.
The thing I like about this is that you can take it out anywhere and it's so simple.
GP
Now, you've arrived at your intended landing site, and it may be higher, hotter, windier or whatever. Fly past 500' above the site at best rate of climb speed noting power required. Now pull maximum power available and note the value. Determine the power margin and if it's equal to or greater than the one you assessed on take off and climb out from your departure point then your chances will be pretty good. If not, go and land somewhere else after repeating the procedure relative to the new landing site.
The thing I like about this is that you can take it out anywhere and it's so simple.
GP
I was taught : Determine the Manifold Pressure Limit before TOFF, and then once near the proposed landing site fly at best ROC and subtract your original MP limit from the new reading and this will equal your power available.
BUT what you say is to pull Max powerand climb out, is this kind of a back up practical check to see that the power you have calculated you actually have is correct and to also kind of give a practical check that the DA is similar to that or not too much worse than that of where you originally did yourManifold Pressure Limit check ?
Hope that makes sense ?
Thanks in advacne
Lotsa
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NZ Southern Alps
Age: 58
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI there, lotsahueys,
What you've described in the opening sentence of your post sounds like what a lot of people take away from a 'limited power' or 'confined areas' lesson. Now I'm not being critical, I did exactly the same thing when I was trying to figure these damn things out.
Doing what you've described will do 2 things: 1. It will tell you the max MAP you can ask from the engine for a given Da before you get going; 2. You will know how much power you are ACTUALLY using at Vbroc as you fly past your landing site.
Now, these are important things to know, but they are completely useless in terms of power limitation assessment unless you have some more info - particularly: power in the hover at takeoff, power used at Vbroc on climb and power actually available at you landing site.
The critical thing here is determining whether or not you can hover at you landing site before you're all out of options and you experience a hard landing, or worse. This means you must know your power margins, which means an assessment of both power available AND required to result in margin. Oh, and by the way, don't just read the MAP limits off the charts - PROVE your power available in the aircraft you're flying at the time you are flying it.
The margin you determine during initial hover/climb is the margin you will need later. It's no good just working out the power available only or power required only. When you fly past your landing site at Vbroc, you'll know your power required. Add the margin you assessed earlier to determine how much power available you're going to need. If this figure exceeds the aircraft's limitations or gives you a bit of drop in Nr when determining the power available then go land somewhere else.
GP
What you've described in the opening sentence of your post sounds like what a lot of people take away from a 'limited power' or 'confined areas' lesson. Now I'm not being critical, I did exactly the same thing when I was trying to figure these damn things out.
Doing what you've described will do 2 things: 1. It will tell you the max MAP you can ask from the engine for a given Da before you get going; 2. You will know how much power you are ACTUALLY using at Vbroc as you fly past your landing site.
Now, these are important things to know, but they are completely useless in terms of power limitation assessment unless you have some more info - particularly: power in the hover at takeoff, power used at Vbroc on climb and power actually available at you landing site.
The critical thing here is determining whether or not you can hover at you landing site before you're all out of options and you experience a hard landing, or worse. This means you must know your power margins, which means an assessment of both power available AND required to result in margin. Oh, and by the way, don't just read the MAP limits off the charts - PROVE your power available in the aircraft you're flying at the time you are flying it.
The margin you determine during initial hover/climb is the margin you will need later. It's no good just working out the power available only or power required only. When you fly past your landing site at Vbroc, you'll know your power required. Add the margin you assessed earlier to determine how much power available you're going to need. If this figure exceeds the aircraft's limitations or gives you a bit of drop in Nr when determining the power available then go land somewhere else.
GP
