No More Fulldowns
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Florida
No More Fulldowns
The FAA has finally decided that full down autorotations are to be removed from the flight syllabus. It is now no longer a requirement at any level.
Date: April 10, 2006
To: All Regional Flight Standards Division Managers
Manager, Regulatory Support Division, AFS-600
Manager, Civil Aviation Registry, AFS-700
Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800
From: James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service, (original signed by John M. Allen)
Prepared by: John D. Lynch
Subject: Elimination of the Simulated Power-off Autorotation to a Touchdown Task on the Flight Instructor - Rotorcraft Helicopter and Gyroplane Practical Test
I have decided to eliminate the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task from the Flight Instructor Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft Helicopter, and Gyroplane, FAA-S-808 1 -7A. Effective the date of this memorandum, the requirement for performing a touchdown autorotation on the Flight Instructor-Rotorcraft (Helicopter and Gyroplane) practical test is no longer required.
Furthermore, this memorandum eliminates the need for the National Resource Inspector Program designation for aviation safety inspectors who conduct proficiency checks and practical tests in helicopters that require applicants to perform the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task. This National Resource Inspector Program designation was established when FAA Notice 8700.39, Requirements for Simulated Power-Off Autorotation to a Touchdown, was issued. FAA Notice 8700.39 expired on March 21,2006.
As a result of eliminating the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task from the practical test, there are no other requirements for performing touchdown autorotation in helicopters on proficiency checks or practical tests. Therefore, aviation safety inspectors and designated pilot examiners are no longer authorized to require applicants to perform the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task on the Flight Instructor-Rotorcraft (Helicopter and Gyroplane) practical test.
I am requesting that this memorandum be distributed to all Flight Standards District Offices and the Airmen Certification Branch, AFS-760, for dissemination to aviation safety inspectors, designated pilot examiners, part 141 pilot schools, and the other helicopter training providers in areas of jurisdiction.
Until the Flight Instructor Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft, Helicopter, and Gyroplane, FAA-S-808 1 -7A, is revised, please comply with the policy contained in this memorandum. If you should have further questions, please contact Inspector John D. Lynch, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-810, at (202) 267-8212.
Comments?
Date: April 10, 2006
To: All Regional Flight Standards Division Managers
Manager, Regulatory Support Division, AFS-600
Manager, Civil Aviation Registry, AFS-700
Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800
From: James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service, (original signed by John M. Allen)
Prepared by: John D. Lynch
Subject: Elimination of the Simulated Power-off Autorotation to a Touchdown Task on the Flight Instructor - Rotorcraft Helicopter and Gyroplane Practical Test
I have decided to eliminate the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task from the Flight Instructor Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft Helicopter, and Gyroplane, FAA-S-808 1 -7A. Effective the date of this memorandum, the requirement for performing a touchdown autorotation on the Flight Instructor-Rotorcraft (Helicopter and Gyroplane) practical test is no longer required.
Furthermore, this memorandum eliminates the need for the National Resource Inspector Program designation for aviation safety inspectors who conduct proficiency checks and practical tests in helicopters that require applicants to perform the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task. This National Resource Inspector Program designation was established when FAA Notice 8700.39, Requirements for Simulated Power-Off Autorotation to a Touchdown, was issued. FAA Notice 8700.39 expired on March 21,2006.
As a result of eliminating the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task from the practical test, there are no other requirements for performing touchdown autorotation in helicopters on proficiency checks or practical tests. Therefore, aviation safety inspectors and designated pilot examiners are no longer authorized to require applicants to perform the simulated power-off autorotation to a touchdown task on the Flight Instructor-Rotorcraft (Helicopter and Gyroplane) practical test.
I am requesting that this memorandum be distributed to all Flight Standards District Offices and the Airmen Certification Branch, AFS-760, for dissemination to aviation safety inspectors, designated pilot examiners, part 141 pilot schools, and the other helicopter training providers in areas of jurisdiction.
Until the Flight Instructor Practical Test Standards for Rotorcraft, Helicopter, and Gyroplane, FAA-S-808 1 -7A, is revised, please comply with the policy contained in this memorandum. If you should have further questions, please contact Inspector John D. Lynch, Certification and General Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-810, at (202) 267-8212.
Comments?
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
It is removed from the PTS (Pilots Test Standards), that doesn't mean it's removed from the syllabus. In fact as I understood you now need an endorsment from an instructor that you are proficient in full-downs (EOL's)
The reason why they removed it from the PTS is a lot of examiners felt very uncomfortable doing them and as a result of checkride-stress a lot of them were not executed properly.
The reason why they removed it from the PTS is a lot of examiners felt very uncomfortable doing them and as a result of checkride-stress a lot of them were not executed properly.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
From: canada
That's ridiculous. Typical Beuracratic BS.
The full-on auto is a VERY important part of learning helicopter control, and that training has saved numberous lives over the years. Doing power recoveries followed by a bunch of hovering Autos doesn't cut it. How can you give a student a license if they can't demonstrate taking a helicopter to the ground??
RH
The full-on auto is a VERY important part of learning helicopter control, and that training has saved numberous lives over the years. Doing power recoveries followed by a bunch of hovering Autos doesn't cut it. How can you give a student a license if they can't demonstrate taking a helicopter to the ground??
RH
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Here, There and Everywhere!!
Well said RH,
When i did my PPL training in the UK, all we did was full down auto's, none of this powered recovery stuff.
I think terminating the auto is one of the most important skills a pilot needs to learn. Its ok learing how to enter, get your spot and keep your RPM's but all that is useless if you bin the heli into the floor.
I dont know how here in the US they can expect to send off a student who has never even been shown a fulldown, let alone him save his own ass with one.
Fulldowns should be as much a part of the syllabus as hovering.
When that donkey goes, you only have ONE chance to get it right!
R22 IMHO
When i did my PPL training in the UK, all we did was full down auto's, none of this powered recovery stuff.
I think terminating the auto is one of the most important skills a pilot needs to learn. Its ok learing how to enter, get your spot and keep your RPM's but all that is useless if you bin the heli into the floor.
I dont know how here in the US they can expect to send off a student who has never even been shown a fulldown, let alone him save his own ass with one.
Fulldowns should be as much a part of the syllabus as hovering.
When that donkey goes, you only have ONE chance to get it right!
R22 IMHO
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Well the FAA have done what the UK CAA have done, bow to operator pressure as operators are stuffing their aircraft - the reason - they are using a helicopter that is a dangerous training helicopter that was never designed as a teaching machine.
I am heading for my underground bunker now
I am heading for my underground bunker now
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
From: canada
500, I alomost said the same thing in my earlier post!
Use the proper equipment for training, and we wouldn't have this issue would we? Take the 47 or the 300, you can full-on those things all day long... and it's been done for decades now.
RH
Use the proper equipment for training, and we wouldn't have this issue would we? Take the 47 or the 300, you can full-on those things all day long... and it's been done for decades now.
RH
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: Northern Virginia, USA
I'm not really qualified to express much of an opinion, being a new PPL. But let me ask a question or two and exercise that business degree that paid so much for.
Obviously full training in every emergency procedure is important to all pilots. But from a PRACTICAL stand point, where is the line of cost/benefit between auto the ground, and an auto to a power recovery hover.
I would agree that knowing how to get all the way to the ground is the better way from a non-financial standpoint, but does it A) raise insurance rates? (which I assume increases training costs, rental/operating costs),
and/or
B) cause more accidents in practice then it does save airframes/lives in real EOLs? (Would you rather risk your airframe X times a week in practice, or once every Y years when you have a real engine failure?)
For my PPL, we only went to a low hover (Bell 47-G2). I've never done a full down auto (I hope to learn as I continue my training), so I don't know how difficult that last few feet is. I'm sure it is very difficult to get it smooth, and "pretty". It took a while to get the feel of power recovery, and make it look calm and orderly. In a real EOL, obviously smooth and pretty are secondary to surviving the landing, and reducing airframe damage. Experience leads to confidence and hopefully a calmer state of mind during an emergency, which hopefully leads to a higher survivability rate.
Anyone have numbers on the number of EOL incidents where that final few feet between the hover and a full down were the deciding factor? If you get the aircraft all the way to the hover (i.e. don't botch the entry, landing selection, maintain RRPM etc) what is % of times someone blew it in the final 5 feet?
What's the cost of that final 5 feet?
What's the cost if you're a pax and which pilot would you feel comfortable with?
Mike
Bell 47-G2
Northern Virginia, USA
Obviously full training in every emergency procedure is important to all pilots. But from a PRACTICAL stand point, where is the line of cost/benefit between auto the ground, and an auto to a power recovery hover.
I would agree that knowing how to get all the way to the ground is the better way from a non-financial standpoint, but does it A) raise insurance rates? (which I assume increases training costs, rental/operating costs),
and/or
B) cause more accidents in practice then it does save airframes/lives in real EOLs? (Would you rather risk your airframe X times a week in practice, or once every Y years when you have a real engine failure?)
For my PPL, we only went to a low hover (Bell 47-G2). I've never done a full down auto (I hope to learn as I continue my training), so I don't know how difficult that last few feet is. I'm sure it is very difficult to get it smooth, and "pretty". It took a while to get the feel of power recovery, and make it look calm and orderly. In a real EOL, obviously smooth and pretty are secondary to surviving the landing, and reducing airframe damage. Experience leads to confidence and hopefully a calmer state of mind during an emergency, which hopefully leads to a higher survivability rate.
Anyone have numbers on the number of EOL incidents where that final few feet between the hover and a full down were the deciding factor? If you get the aircraft all the way to the hover (i.e. don't botch the entry, landing selection, maintain RRPM etc) what is % of times someone blew it in the final 5 feet?
What's the cost of that final 5 feet?
What's the cost if you're a pax and which pilot would you feel comfortable with?
Mike
Bell 47-G2
Northern Virginia, USA
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania, USA
We use Bell 47's and our last 2 appliciants for CFI completed the maneover, after the FAA examier got out, an said Way you go... Full down Autorotation please
I musy admit they are easier in the 47 especially when you only have 1 person in there......
I musy admit they are easier in the 47 especially when you only have 1 person in there......
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO and the GOM
Originally Posted by remote hook
The full-on auto is a VERY important part of learning helicopter control...
...and that training has saved numberous lives over the years.
Doing power recoveries followed by a bunch of hovering Autos doesn't cut it. How can you give a student a license if they can't demonstrate taking a helicopter to the ground??
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 90
Likes: 2
From: USA
When going through my PPL training (in R22's) touchdown auto's weren't on the lesson plan - but I had them demonstrated anyways by the CFI because I wanted to see. He was fine with that, although the school's owner didn't like it very much!
When getting my CPL(H) about 15 years ago, same thing - wasn't required to do any to the ground for the practical test but I was comfortable doing them. Again it was because I asked & did a bunch, this was in Bell 47's so they were very relaxed compared to the R22.
I can see the point of not requiring them on the practical test, but I'd still prefer to be trained in them personally.
When getting my CPL(H) about 15 years ago, same thing - wasn't required to do any to the ground for the practical test but I was comfortable doing them. Again it was because I asked & did a bunch, this was in Bell 47's so they were very relaxed compared to the R22.
I can see the point of not requiring them on the practical test, but I'd still prefer to be trained in them personally.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
From: canada
Fling 207:
It seems we're close to agreement, but I have to stress that the pilot who has done numerous full-ons will react better to the INTITIAL 5 seconds of a real engine failure because they are not going into the unknown. That is very important. You are correct that lowering the pole, maintaining control of the machine, and making a spot are vital - but so is making that spot with the machine in the best possible state(ie. RRPM and A/S) to successully complete the proceedure. Power recoveries cannot simulate that.
I'm not saying the last five feet are the problem, what I am saying is the comfort level with the WHOLE proceedure is dependant on the pilot having those experiences. Will he/she have a quick heart attack when the engine quits for real? You bet, but after that moment, how will they react? In my experience, people fear the unknown, and to that end I feel that having many full-ons under ones belt is to everyone's advantage from a survivability standpoint.
Now, I do agree that in the number of machines being wrecked in practice autos is greater than cost alone would justify, but looking at this from strictly a cost perspective is a crude approach. People's lives are at stake when these rare events occur, and having a pilot not fully versed and trained in all aspects of the operation, is boarderline neglegent. We also must use the right machinery to train on, if certian helicopters are not conducive to safely training pilots to an accpetable standard, then don't use them.
My $0.02
RH
It seems we're close to agreement, but I have to stress that the pilot who has done numerous full-ons will react better to the INTITIAL 5 seconds of a real engine failure because they are not going into the unknown. That is very important. You are correct that lowering the pole, maintaining control of the machine, and making a spot are vital - but so is making that spot with the machine in the best possible state(ie. RRPM and A/S) to successully complete the proceedure. Power recoveries cannot simulate that.
I'm not saying the last five feet are the problem, what I am saying is the comfort level with the WHOLE proceedure is dependant on the pilot having those experiences. Will he/she have a quick heart attack when the engine quits for real? You bet, but after that moment, how will they react? In my experience, people fear the unknown, and to that end I feel that having many full-ons under ones belt is to everyone's advantage from a survivability standpoint.
Now, I do agree that in the number of machines being wrecked in practice autos is greater than cost alone would justify, but looking at this from strictly a cost perspective is a crude approach. People's lives are at stake when these rare events occur, and having a pilot not fully versed and trained in all aspects of the operation, is boarderline neglegent. We also must use the right machinery to train on, if certian helicopters are not conducive to safely training pilots to an accpetable standard, then don't use them.
My $0.02
RH
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO and the GOM
Originally Posted by remote hook
Fling 207:
It seems we're close to agreement,
It seems we're close to agreement,
but I have to stress that the pilot who has done numerous full-ons will react better to the INTITIAL 5 seconds of a real engine failure because they are not going into the unknown.
You are correct that lowering the pole, maintaining control of the machine, and making a spot are vital - but so is making that spot with the machine in the best possible state(ie. RRPM and A/S) to successully complete the proceedure.
Power recoveries cannot simulate that.
We also must use the right machinery to train on, if certian helicopters are not conducive to safely training pilots to an accpetable standard, then don't use them.
