Has helicopter flying gotten a lot easier??
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Graviman - there is now a generation of performance car drivers who have been able to drive faster and harder thanks to all the traction control and stability control systems. But, when they finally push the car beyond the limits of the clever technology - it is so far gone that even if they had the skills to recover it (which they don't because they have never had to cultivate them) the car is so far out of shape that recovery is almost impossible anyway. Equally they won't service the car until it tells them to even if there are funny noises coming from under the bonnet because the on board monitoring has malfunctioned. Do you want to produce a generation of helicopter pilots who are similarly challenged?
If you make it too much easier to fly a helicopter then those who previously wouldn't have been employed will get the jobs and the wages in the pilot sector will go down as the job will not be seen to require any special skills. Only the crappy jobs in awful locations will remain where the aircraft need to be pushed to their absolute limit so the skilful and knowledgable pilot will find himself marginalised while a generation of button pushers take the corporate and rig jobs.
If you make it too much easier to fly a helicopter then those who previously wouldn't have been employed will get the jobs and the wages in the pilot sector will go down as the job will not be seen to require any special skills. Only the crappy jobs in awful locations will remain where the aircraft need to be pushed to their absolute limit so the skilful and knowledgable pilot will find himself marginalised while a generation of button pushers take the corporate and rig jobs.
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
Originally Posted by Crab
Do you want to produce a generation of helicopter pilots who are similarly challenged?
My arguement is actually the reverse. By making the machine as easy to fly as a fixed wing, you broaden both it's applications and it's appeal - i am considering R22 size machines specifically here. This means that helicopter manufacturers can begin to benefit from the reduced costs of higher volume. This means machine and operating cost goes down - if insurers are competing fairly they have to consider a machine with larger error margin favourably. Experienced pilots such as yourself are always going to be in demand, since even a machine with benign failsafe handling is still doing something which can essentially be considered dangerous - with regulations to suit.
The point is that this technology is not new, but there is just no commercial incentive for manufacturers to implement it. I imagine that will be until one manufacturer takes that step...
Mart
Joined: Sep 2002
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,722
Likes: 637
From: Great South East, tired and retired
So, how can anybody design a "benign, failsafe machine" for R22 prices?
As I understand it, stability is the other end of the spectrum from manoeuvrability. A DC-3 is very stable, but not very agile. An F-16 is very agile, but totally unstable, and needs a computer bank to make it flyable.
Choppers are the same. Artificial stability takes out some of the agility. An R22 is very nippy, but you can't let go of that stick. It is also very light. But toss in a stability system (to make it benign) plus a couple more (to make it failsafe) plus the actuators and the generators to power it, and it isn't an R22 any more. It is more like the R88 in another thread.
The lower end of the market will always be the equivalent of the B206, without any add-ons, doing the hard yards. You cannot afford the good bits when somebody keeps undercutting the tender prices just for the cash flow.
But it would be nice to get a bit further up the food chain and away from the 1950s designs. Our Huey is 43 years old, but it looks magnificent and sounds even better. Even our S76 is 20 years old, but the step up to autopilots and SAS, with benign, almost fail-safe systems, is so nice!!
As I understand it, stability is the other end of the spectrum from manoeuvrability. A DC-3 is very stable, but not very agile. An F-16 is very agile, but totally unstable, and needs a computer bank to make it flyable.
Choppers are the same. Artificial stability takes out some of the agility. An R22 is very nippy, but you can't let go of that stick. It is also very light. But toss in a stability system (to make it benign) plus a couple more (to make it failsafe) plus the actuators and the generators to power it, and it isn't an R22 any more. It is more like the R88 in another thread.
The lower end of the market will always be the equivalent of the B206, without any add-ons, doing the hard yards. You cannot afford the good bits when somebody keeps undercutting the tender prices just for the cash flow.
But it would be nice to get a bit further up the food chain and away from the 1950s designs. Our Huey is 43 years old, but it looks magnificent and sounds even better. Even our S76 is 20 years old, but the step up to autopilots and SAS, with benign, almost fail-safe systems, is so nice!!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
Crab asked, "Do you want to produce a generation of helicopter pilots who are similarly challenged?"
Yes. I want an industry that does not rely on needing brave people with lightning fast reflexes and the judgement of a brain surgeon in order for its passengers to survive.
I want a system of transport that, if left mostly to itself, hardly ever failed.
I want machines that mostly were trying to help their crews, not turn them upside down after a moment's distraction.
I want a generation of pilots who are not driven by the macho pride of how hard it is to do their job, but instead are driven by pride in how long it has been since they had to blame a peer for failing in his job.
The automobile industry faced such decisions back when, and electric starters, emergency brakes, radial tires, windshield wipers, ignition keys, etc etc were developed to mature the industry and make automotive transportation legitimate. And back then, hairy-chested drivers lamented the passing of the ways...
Yes. I want an industry that does not rely on needing brave people with lightning fast reflexes and the judgement of a brain surgeon in order for its passengers to survive.
I want a system of transport that, if left mostly to itself, hardly ever failed.
I want machines that mostly were trying to help their crews, not turn them upside down after a moment's distraction.
I want a generation of pilots who are not driven by the macho pride of how hard it is to do their job, but instead are driven by pride in how long it has been since they had to blame a peer for failing in his job.
The automobile industry faced such decisions back when, and electric starters, emergency brakes, radial tires, windshield wipers, ignition keys, etc etc were developed to mature the industry and make automotive transportation legitimate. And back then, hairy-chested drivers lamented the passing of the ways...
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: canada
Nick says "I want machines that mostly were trying to help their crews, not turn them upside down after a moment's distraction" - and- "but instead are driven by pride in how long it has been since they had to blame a peer for failing in his job"
i understand what this thread is trying to say/accomplish, and i have had the benefit in moving into a machine that limits my cycles into confined areas by having enough power to complete the task without repetitive trips to the same spot, limiting exposure to the dangers involved.
there is also a GREAT variation in the roles/tasks a helicopter must do. flying runway to runway, i agree with Nicks quotes. make the machine self flyable on a microwace beam, and then install a monkey to open the door at the other end
Put the same machine into a mountaineous region, or pure VFR bush (read forest) transport, firefighting/longlining and i'm afraid that is where the pilot must be paramount, NOT the systemed machine
there is a separation between what we try to accomplish in machine design, and what we have to accomplish as pilots of the machine. I don't beleive we can talk about both as being one entity.
as put forward before, most accidents are pilot error, and dumbing down the pilot will not help the machine getting it's tail stuck into a tree, dynamic roll-over, CFIT in poor weather.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that the TASK of the helicopter defines the type of pilot needed, and the hairy chested guy will always be in demand
and remember, anybody can grow hair on his chest, but it takes a REAL man to wear it off
i understand what this thread is trying to say/accomplish, and i have had the benefit in moving into a machine that limits my cycles into confined areas by having enough power to complete the task without repetitive trips to the same spot, limiting exposure to the dangers involved.
there is also a GREAT variation in the roles/tasks a helicopter must do. flying runway to runway, i agree with Nicks quotes. make the machine self flyable on a microwace beam, and then install a monkey to open the door at the other end
Put the same machine into a mountaineous region, or pure VFR bush (read forest) transport, firefighting/longlining and i'm afraid that is where the pilot must be paramount, NOT the systemed machine there is a separation between what we try to accomplish in machine design, and what we have to accomplish as pilots of the machine. I don't beleive we can talk about both as being one entity.
as put forward before, most accidents are pilot error, and dumbing down the pilot will not help the machine getting it's tail stuck into a tree, dynamic roll-over, CFIT in poor weather.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that the TASK of the helicopter defines the type of pilot needed, and the hairy chested guy will always be in demand
and remember, anybody can grow hair on his chest, but it takes a REAL man to wear it off
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
So, how can anybody design a "benign, failsafe machine" for R22 prices?
Lockheed successfully implemented an entirely mechanical (read simple) control system that allowed the pilot to have extremely good control over a very stable light helicopter.
http://www.nasm.edu/research/aero/ai...heed_cl475.htm
http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_e..._cl-475-r.html
Due to problems with the AH-56, in particular cambered aerofoil flexural divergence, Lockheed was forced to walk away from helicopters with nothing to show for years of dedicated passion but a huge financial loss. The CL-475 system pioneered by Irwin Culver, became the forerunner of modern FBW systems - the pilot flies the gyro while the gyro is flying the helicopter. At the same time mechanical system became synonymous with Bell and Hiller bars, but never ever resurfaced in the original form with the amazing level of flyability demonstrated by Lockheed.
Mart
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
And once you make the machine so safe and easy to fly, you take all of the FUN out of it and when you stop enjoying flying it is time to quit.
How much fun is it being a modern airline pilot where the computer does 99% of the flying for you? It's very safe but how quickly do your pilot skills wane when you never get to fly the aircraft?
Nick's utopian dream is achieveable but it won't need any pilots - as 407 said, just door openers and closers.
I am very happy to have a TAS and height hold and be able to couple up the helo to the nav kit as it offloads my small brain for mission decisions but when it gets to the interesting bit I am going to don my chest wig and actually fly the aircraft.
Despite not having lightning fast reflexes nor the judgement of a brain surgeon (more like a startled sloth and brain donor) the human interface (even mine) will be required for the less mundane tasks, especially where judgement calls need to be made (not something machines are very good at).
How much fun is it being a modern airline pilot where the computer does 99% of the flying for you? It's very safe but how quickly do your pilot skills wane when you never get to fly the aircraft?
Nick's utopian dream is achieveable but it won't need any pilots - as 407 said, just door openers and closers.
I am very happy to have a TAS and height hold and be able to couple up the helo to the nav kit as it offloads my small brain for mission decisions but when it gets to the interesting bit I am going to don my chest wig and actually fly the aircraft.
Despite not having lightning fast reflexes nor the judgement of a brain surgeon (more like a startled sloth and brain donor) the human interface (even mine) will be required for the less mundane tasks, especially where judgement calls need to be made (not something machines are very good at).
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
From: N20,W99
I get the impression that some of you would like to keep it complicated to keep on making a good living off of it ?
The way I see it is that right now we are under the impression that overall flying helicopters has become easier because of all the tech advances, and we are still flying the same missions, but as time goes by and we start by getting acquainted with these new machines we'll start doing stuff with them that wasn't possible before, again closer to the edge of performance of the helicopter, and having to be able to use all the onboard help we've got.
Of course having the insanely complex stick and rudder skills along with flawless judgement won't be as important anymore as helicopters get more control authority and power, other skills will start to be more important, and we better start learning those. Sure flying a modern machine day VFR GOM will probably done by my little sister, but those who have more complex missions like SPIFR, or using NVG's will have plenty of work on their hands.
Of course this technology is going to take a long time to reach all the sectors of the industry, and meanwhile I have heard rumors that those who learned to fly all this stuff from the beginning like the newest Army guys, have a hard time transitioning from powerful well equipped helicopters like the UH60 to lesser gifted machines, hence operators are scared of handing their helicopters to a guy to who is used to pulling himself out of anywhere without hesitation from the transmission, don't know how true this is?
In any case the way I see it is all this technology allows me to do more with the helicopter, stuff I didn't see feasible, or felt comfortable with before is now becoming the norm.
The way I see it is that right now we are under the impression that overall flying helicopters has become easier because of all the tech advances, and we are still flying the same missions, but as time goes by and we start by getting acquainted with these new machines we'll start doing stuff with them that wasn't possible before, again closer to the edge of performance of the helicopter, and having to be able to use all the onboard help we've got.
Of course having the insanely complex stick and rudder skills along with flawless judgement won't be as important anymore as helicopters get more control authority and power, other skills will start to be more important, and we better start learning those. Sure flying a modern machine day VFR GOM will probably done by my little sister, but those who have more complex missions like SPIFR, or using NVG's will have plenty of work on their hands.
Of course this technology is going to take a long time to reach all the sectors of the industry, and meanwhile I have heard rumors that those who learned to fly all this stuff from the beginning like the newest Army guys, have a hard time transitioning from powerful well equipped helicopters like the UH60 to lesser gifted machines, hence operators are scared of handing their helicopters to a guy to who is used to pulling himself out of anywhere without hesitation from the transmission, don't know how true this is?
In any case the way I see it is all this technology allows me to do more with the helicopter, stuff I didn't see feasible, or felt comfortable with before is now becoming the norm.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO and the GOM
Originally Posted by [email protected]
And once you make the machine so safe and easy to fly, you take all of the FUN out of it and when you stop enjoying flying it is time to quit.
How much fun is it being a modern airline pilot where the computer does 99% of the flying for you? It's very safe but how quickly do your pilot skills wane when you never get to fly the aircraft?
How much fun is it being a modern airline pilot where the computer does 99% of the flying for you? It's very safe but how quickly do your pilot skills wane when you never get to fly the aircraft?
Cool as a moosp
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
From: Mostly Hong Kong
Crab posted:
<How much fun is it being a modern airline pilot where the computer does
<99% of the flying for you? It's very safe but how quickly do your pilot skills
<wane when you never get to fly the aircraft?
Fun is not part of the equation. It can be boring watching an autopilot for 14 hours, but it is a darn sight safer than relying on the human brain to keep the shiny side up. Many airline pilots fly sport aviation on their days off, and that is where the fun should remain in flying.
Pilot skills do wane in airline flying. So they should. Many of the skills we train and check for are redundant and bear little relevance to the monitoring and system operating that are required. The engineers wanted to put a manual landing of the A380 into the QRH (non-normal procedures) and I believe that is where it belongs on such a machine.
I cannot land a tail wheel aircraft. I don't need to, it is a redundant pilot skill for my job these days.
In helicopters, I would like to see the day when auto-hover, through to the full flight regime, can be done by the machine. Auto-rotations will not be required to be taught, as such failures as require them will be statistically insignificant. Anti wire collision radar will be standard (it was available to the military from the late 1960's)
And all this on a two seat utility under 1000kgs.
<How much fun is it being a modern airline pilot where the computer does
<99% of the flying for you? It's very safe but how quickly do your pilot skills
<wane when you never get to fly the aircraft?
Fun is not part of the equation. It can be boring watching an autopilot for 14 hours, but it is a darn sight safer than relying on the human brain to keep the shiny side up. Many airline pilots fly sport aviation on their days off, and that is where the fun should remain in flying.
Pilot skills do wane in airline flying. So they should. Many of the skills we train and check for are redundant and bear little relevance to the monitoring and system operating that are required. The engineers wanted to put a manual landing of the A380 into the QRH (non-normal procedures) and I believe that is where it belongs on such a machine.
I cannot land a tail wheel aircraft. I don't need to, it is a redundant pilot skill for my job these days.
In helicopters, I would like to see the day when auto-hover, through to the full flight regime, can be done by the machine. Auto-rotations will not be required to be taught, as such failures as require them will be statistically insignificant. Anti wire collision radar will be standard (it was available to the military from the late 1960's)
And all this on a two seat utility under 1000kgs.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
From: North of Eq
If the design of the modern helicopter is intended to make flying easier than before then perhaps the teams that designed the low inertia main rotor blades for such helicopters as the EC120 weren’t copied the memo.
It would be nice if it were easy to maintain a constant rotor speed in autorotation in all modern helicopters.
It would be nice if it were easy to maintain a constant rotor speed in autorotation in all modern helicopters.
