Leaving helicopter with engine/rotors running - merged threads
JE,
Not all the Antipodes - the NZ CAA has taken a few to task over the RFM requirement overriding the exemption that some hold.
and the Antipodes allows pilots to leave a running helicopter under certain conditions including skid only, lockable flying controls and required for safety reasons.
Flying and landing in remote areas of SE Asia (jungle). When I land I put the engine ( or engineS) to idle, frictions on and I'm the first One to get out to open the pax doors and get their baggage out.
I do this cos passengers don't know how to open and more importantly close the doors again specially the cargo door. I cannot take off again if I haven't personally checked that all doors are PROPERLY closed.
Also, I make sure that no one walks towards the spinning tail rotor and I give them a clear way to walk away from the helicopter.
I think any other pilot with average common sense would do the same given the circumstances.
I am particularly sensitive to this matter because a few years ago one of my course mates killed him self When his helicopter took off without him at the controls.
I do this cos passengers don't know how to open and more importantly close the doors again specially the cargo door. I cannot take off again if I haven't personally checked that all doors are PROPERLY closed.
Also, I make sure that no one walks towards the spinning tail rotor and I give them a clear way to walk away from the helicopter.
I think any other pilot with average common sense would do the same given the circumstances.
I am particularly sensitive to this matter because a few years ago one of my course mates killed him self When his helicopter took off without him at the controls.
John, please don't take this out of context. I was referring to the following.
This thread is about the pilot landing, exiting without shut-down (for whatever reason), then getting back in and taking off again.
One can't seriously wrap this up as maintenance ground-run.
Rotarywise was just stating that EASA unfortunately clearly prohibits such action.
I'm not saying that it never makes sense to do so. Just that is not legal under EASA.
One can't seriously wrap this up as maintenance ground-run.
Rotarywise was just stating that EASA unfortunately clearly prohibits such action.
I'm not saying that it never makes sense to do so. Just that is not legal under EASA.
Well, although I no longer fly, I have to agree with Vertical Freedom, and have also done it many times. Take a look at the video the OP posted. This is a perfect example of why it is banned in some places! Why oh why did the pilot not turn the nose to face the SLF before he set it down? From what can be seen in the video he could have also hung the TR over the back edge of the pad, as demonstrated many times previously in Vertical Freedoms posts.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoknows
The rule does not need to mention "maintenance", as that is just one example of why it happens.
If you interpret the rule exactly, then if no pilot is at the controls, the purpose is not to fly.
A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…
Perhaps the pilot is taking a pi55 and simply does not want to fly "at the moment", so no need to be at the controls until the purpose is to fly…at which point he will then be at the controls. 
This thread is about the pilot landing, exiting without shut-down (for whatever reason), then getting back in and taking off again.
One can't seriously wrap this up as maintenance ground-run.
One can't seriously wrap this up as maintenance ground-run.
If you interpret the rule exactly, then if no pilot is at the controls, the purpose is not to fly.
A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…
Great. For which reason is it then turning under power, if not for flight?
The key issue is the risk the Helicopter might go fly without the Pilot.
Control that risk adequately and Robert is your Mom's Brother.
Control that risk adequately and Robert is your Mom's Brother.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exit after frictioning of controls on an idling helicopter was taught to every US Army helicopter pilot back in the day. Standard practice.
Why? As many have alluded, assuring a restart can be problematic in cold harsh climes, and little risk exists with controls effectively locked.
I am also not sure that quoted European regulation forbids the practice - "A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls". It specifically uses the the phrase "be turned" in the context of starting, and not in the context of steady state. Is there specific guidance that describes it as universal? Were it phrased "while turning" I'd think it iron clad.
Why? As many have alluded, assuring a restart can be problematic in cold harsh climes, and little risk exists with controls effectively locked.
I am also not sure that quoted European regulation forbids the practice - "A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls". It specifically uses the the phrase "be turned" in the context of starting, and not in the context of steady state. Is there specific guidance that describes it as universal? Were it phrased "while turning" I'd think it iron clad.
Why would the use of "Friction" devices not meet the requirement for "Locks"?
Knowing too many Fixed Wing Rules and concepts have been applied to Rotorcraft by Authorities.....could the "Control Locks" thinking really be an evolution of "Gust Locks" that are mechanical devices that stop the movement of flight control surfaces rather than the flight controls themselves?
If you apply sufficient friction there is no moving of the controls without a lot of force being required.
I suppose one would have to differentiate between commonsense definitions and approved definitions codified within an Authority's Legal Definitions such as Part One of the US FAA FAR's.
The UK Contingent loving complex application of rules, regs, laws, etc with over lapping jurisdictions should be able to enlighten us on how they approach such matters.
Knowing too many Fixed Wing Rules and concepts have been applied to Rotorcraft by Authorities.....could the "Control Locks" thinking really be an evolution of "Gust Locks" that are mechanical devices that stop the movement of flight control surfaces rather than the flight controls themselves?
If you apply sufficient friction there is no moving of the controls without a lot of force being required.
I suppose one would have to differentiate between commonsense definitions and approved definitions codified within an Authority's Legal Definitions such as Part One of the US FAA FAR's.
The UK Contingent loving complex application of rules, regs, laws, etc with over lapping jurisdictions should be able to enlighten us on how they approach such matters.
whoknows
The rule does not need to mention "maintenance", as that is just one example of why it happens.
If you interpret the rule exactly, then if no pilot is at the controls, the purpose is not to fly.
A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…
Perhaps the pilot is taking a pi55 and simply does not want to fly "at the moment", so no need to be at the controls until the purpose is to fly…at which point he will then be at the controls.
The rule does not need to mention "maintenance", as that is just one example of why it happens.
If you interpret the rule exactly, then if no pilot is at the controls, the purpose is not to fly.
A lot of people are mis interpreting this rule to make it fit into their line of thinking…
Perhaps the pilot is taking a pi55 and simply does not want to fly "at the moment", so no need to be at the controls until the purpose is to fly…at which point he will then be at the controls.
By your logic the whole rule would be obsolete because it's already stated elsewhere that there needs to be a suitably licensed pilot at the controls during flight.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
(locked controls, HYD OFF, wind conditions, etc...)
I can fully understand why in some scenarios such as extreme climate or remote sites, the risk of leaving the controls whilst disembarking pax is less than the problems caused by a stranded heli (but in many cases I suspect it's used as an excuse to get home to the pub quicker) but if leaving pax there anyway it would be difficult to say one's life was in danger in many cases.
I used to have a video of a NZ pilot who left his AS350 burning and turning at idle and totally unmanned for twenty minutes. He disembarked his passengers, carried their bags off the airfield and escorted them through a busy public car park, leaving the access gate unlocked and unguarded. As we were on the nearest row of the car park I moved my car containing my kids some distance away. He eventually re-appeared in a casual fashion, got back in, whacked the engine up to fly and immediately lifted off. He moved very rapidly left and almost collided with another helicopter hover taxying behind him. He "quick stopped" so harshly the tail of his Squirrel almost hit the ground.
An international airport is hardly a remote region and at the time I possibly did say something along the lines of slightly doubting his professionalism.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoknows
Because I may want to fly "in a minute". There could be any number of reasons. Perhaps to avoid another start / stop cycle count during a short period on the ground, or doing lots of short trips and you need to get pax out the back, or maybe just landing and you need a pi55, perhaps to supervise hot refuelling, maybe having to load your own cargo net, perhaps you have an oil leak and you want to check for drips with the engine running, in fact any reason you may be landing somewhere for only 5 minutes or so and you need to get out, what's the point of shutting down if you don't have the time to wait before you can start up again? What if it won't start and you are on the beach at low tide?
I can only presume you also always shut down when you land, otherwise what's the purpose of landing eh?
I suppose I could ask you what's the reason for landing then if you don't shut down?
If you don't want to fly "at the moment", why do you leave it running then?
I can only presume you also always shut down when you land, otherwise what's the purpose of landing eh?
I suppose I could ask you what's the reason for landing then if you don't shut down?
Ok, so clearly the helicopter is burning&turning FOR THE PURPOSE OF FLIGHT.
All the good reasons for doing so make it an operation that requires either ground crew or additional air crew for safest possible execution. Or at least to make it an EASA conform operation.
Yet another cost effectiveness vs safety discussion in the end.
Just take a low-timer for the ride and he can hold the stick while you are relieving yourself, no pun intended.
All the good reasons for doing so make it an operation that requires either ground crew or additional air crew for safest possible execution. Or at least to make it an EASA conform operation.
Yet another cost effectiveness vs safety discussion in the end.
Just take a low-timer for the ride and he can hold the stick while you are relieving yourself, no pun intended.
Why would One wish to turn a Flight Control Hydraulics System "Off" to begin with?
Example is the Jetbox....turn the hydraulics off and the Stick can be motored by Feedback forces. Same on the venerable Huey.
Example is the Jetbox....turn the hydraulics off and the Stick can be motored by Feedback forces. Same on the venerable Huey.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoknows
But not yet, so it's not for the purpose of flight until the pilot gets in and opens the throttle!
Ok, so clearly the helicopter is burning&turning FOR THE PURPOSE OF FLIGHT.
Last edited by chopjock; 3rd Oct 2016 at 10:56.
I think the "Hydraulics Off" idea comes from the Robby world. Theory being that the collective doesnt rise when the hydros are switched off. At least thats what I was told when I did my rating a few years back. A fair few of the R44's here in NZ have a collective lock on them that helps mitigate the risk of a fly-away.
I have a question for the eurocopter guys.. With a squirrel (or twin squirrel in my case), will the machine be able to lift off with both engines at ground idle when empty? Seems to me that the collective lock is easy knocked off.
I have a question for the eurocopter guys.. With a squirrel (or twin squirrel in my case), will the machine be able to lift off with both engines at ground idle when empty? Seems to me that the collective lock is easy knocked off.
