Leaving helicopter with engine/rotors running - merged threads
TH-55 for me.....68-9 and 68-11.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would One wish to turn a Flight Control Hydraulics System "Off" to begin with?
Simply by the fact pax ( or even the pilot!!) may hit the controls while boarding or leaving the helicopter, (yes, with dual controls installed) and some helicopters also creep up the collective on ground running
Last edited by Soave_Pilot; 3rd Oct 2016 at 02:01.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nubian
I don't think so. It may be an opps manual limitation only, iaw an AOC.
Certainly does not apply to private flying as far as I know...
Pax in a seat with dual's installed is also not allowed in EASA land...
Certainly does not apply to private flying as far as I know...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Bell 206 series and 407 if you think that by turning off the hydraulics you are locking the cyclic and collective in place you are sorely mistaken.....
"Just a pilot"
The AS350/355 series collective lock should not be "eas(il)y knocked off." The lock plate should be held firmly in place either on the grip area or stud by by tension of the collective bottoming. It should require definite downward pressure on the collective to engage/disengage the lock plate. Cyclic friction is another question altogether, difficult ergonomically, unlike the collective lock.
Servos will 'motor', moving controls spontaneously, which is why people think turning the hydraulics off is a good idea. In some aircraft the hydraulics off trim point is not the same you set your controls before you exit, turning off the boost allows them to return to the designed neutral setting- the collective will rise to an approximate mid-point on the Astar which, at flight idle, is a significant amount of lift. I wouldn't trust force trim to maintain control positions either: if I couldn't friction/clamp/lock all the controls, including throttle, I wouldn't consider leaving the seat.
Externals have to be considered as well. Is the aircraft securely placed? Wind and weather not a problem? And the groundlings- is it better to manage the area personally or is it better to shut down? Not being able to restart after the ground operations can be a safety issue if you're not at a regularly secured landing facility.
It always puzzles me that the Europeans I know are so very well trained but hobbled by excessive regulation at home. NO- our alleged 'cowboy' attitude isn't the reason various Yank pilots buy the farm- if the very real possibility that being stupid doesn't stop a pilot, a rule won't. If that is the problem here, it's a trainig\ng issue from Day One of the training process- my opinion.
Servos will 'motor', moving controls spontaneously, which is why people think turning the hydraulics off is a good idea. In some aircraft the hydraulics off trim point is not the same you set your controls before you exit, turning off the boost allows them to return to the designed neutral setting- the collective will rise to an approximate mid-point on the Astar which, at flight idle, is a significant amount of lift. I wouldn't trust force trim to maintain control positions either: if I couldn't friction/clamp/lock all the controls, including throttle, I wouldn't consider leaving the seat.
Externals have to be considered as well. Is the aircraft securely placed? Wind and weather not a problem? And the groundlings- is it better to manage the area personally or is it better to shut down? Not being able to restart after the ground operations can be a safety issue if you're not at a regularly secured landing facility.
It always puzzles me that the Europeans I know are so very well trained but hobbled by excessive regulation at home. NO- our alleged 'cowboy' attitude isn't the reason various Yank pilots buy the farm- if the very real possibility that being stupid doesn't stop a pilot, a rule won't. If that is the problem here, it's a trainig\ng issue from Day One of the training process- my opinion.
Are we seeing a Generation of Pilots that only "think" they know what they are about? I note more than a few will quote the "Queen's Regulations" (or whatever Authority is in vogue at the time) but seem not to have a full understanding of not only "what" the Rule has to say....but do not fully understand "why" the Rule exists and that it is very near impossible to write a Rule that covers every possible situation.
The Black and White situations are easy to apply the various Rules to...but it is the Gray colored situations that demand the ability to know when the Rule should be considered sound advice but not be considered as having been etched in Stone.
They are all written on Paper at some place....and are subject to Amendment over time.
Bureaucracy only adds to the Rule Book....and never reduces the amount of burden it adds to the situation.
The Black and White situations are easy to apply the various Rules to...but it is the Gray colored situations that demand the ability to know when the Rule should be considered sound advice but not be considered as having been etched in Stone.
They are all written on Paper at some place....and are subject to Amendment over time.
Bureaucracy only adds to the Rule Book....and never reduces the amount of burden it adds to the situation.
Chop,
Yes, for CAT ops.
What regs count for private flying, I've no idea about. But from your logic, interpretation and argumentation as seen here and in other threads, I'm sure you have a solution to get around most regulations anyway...
Yes, for CAT ops.
What regs count for private flying, I've no idea about. But from your logic, interpretation and argumentation as seen here and in other threads, I'm sure you have a solution to get around most regulations anyway...
It boils down to risk.
Does the veteran bushpilot know better than the flight ops inspectorate department?
Bit of both really, the bush pilot eats sleeps and flies his job day in day out and gets a "feel" for his work and associated risks. Leaving a cab running is 2nd nature.
The inspectorate making the rules see it from outside of this bubble and look at the risk inherent in that bush pilots job and regulates accordingly. Neither are right or wrong in each and every case.
BUT.
The wheel stops spinning when something goes very badly wrong and if it so happens to kill or maim an innocent bystander, then thats where the rules come in I guess - to protect the public.
Go ahead and kill yourself - no-one really cares, especially if you have no family but often it's the case where the "operator" has a conflict of interest and puts to one side this risk to achieve the operational outcome - often no consideration for others, just self. In that case - no one really cares and we say goodbye to another darwin member.
IF one was to stop for a second and count the emotional, financial and operational cost of an accident happening, leaving a cab running would never be an option but time is money, people cost money and so to hell with certain rules - too much bother, I guess.
As they say, if you think applying the rules costs money - try having an accident
Does the veteran bushpilot know better than the flight ops inspectorate department?
Bit of both really, the bush pilot eats sleeps and flies his job day in day out and gets a "feel" for his work and associated risks. Leaving a cab running is 2nd nature.
The inspectorate making the rules see it from outside of this bubble and look at the risk inherent in that bush pilots job and regulates accordingly. Neither are right or wrong in each and every case.
BUT.
The wheel stops spinning when something goes very badly wrong and if it so happens to kill or maim an innocent bystander, then thats where the rules come in I guess - to protect the public.
Go ahead and kill yourself - no-one really cares, especially if you have no family but often it's the case where the "operator" has a conflict of interest and puts to one side this risk to achieve the operational outcome - often no consideration for others, just self. In that case - no one really cares and we say goodbye to another darwin member.
IF one was to stop for a second and count the emotional, financial and operational cost of an accident happening, leaving a cab running would never be an option but time is money, people cost money and so to hell with certain rules - too much bother, I guess.
As they say, if you think applying the rules costs money - try having an accident
IF one was to stop for a second and count the emotional, financial and operational cost of an accident happening, leaving a cab running would never be an option but time is money, people cost money and so to hell with certain rules - too much bother, I guess.
Do you think the CAA, EASA, FAA, and the rest of the Alphabet Gang have divine wisdom in their writing of the "Rules"?
You reckon every "Rule" is universal truth?
Even the Authorities grant dispensation to Pilots to violate those very "Rules" at times.
If an Operation such as we are discussing has been, is being done, and will continue to be done literally millions of times with absolutely no problems....just like many other common practices in Aviation....just why should it be so unsafe in your view?
Do you analyze the few accidents that occur during these events to determine what actually caused the accident and then assign the blame based upon that?
Question for you....the Super Puma (or whatever it was) that flew into the Water in the Shetlands.....did you call for the banning of cloud break procedures or non-precision approaches ?
This leaving the cockpit thing is exactly the same in concept.
If IMC near terra firma....I pay attention to my flight path and height above the surface....if I leave the cockpit and leave the Helicopter running...I make sure the controls are secure and the aircraft is stable and it is the best thing to do.
Aviation is nothing but a Risk Management Exercise....where all Risks cannot be removed without putting an end to the aviating part of the exercise.
There is nothing Darwinian about that.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post-accident examination of the helicopter revealed that the cyclic friction lock was not tightened, which contradicted with
the flight manual's shutdown checklist.
the flight manual's shutdown checklist.
2) Landed at the wrong fuel pump and did not reposition THEN Shutdown.
3) Failed to secure the Cyclic Stick Friction.
4) Failed to safely approach the helicopter.
How does this prove the Procedure cannot be done safely?
It certainly proves this particular event was not done safely.
If you want....we can expand this debate to include yet another discussion about how RFM's come to be written by manufacturers (with strong input from their Lawyers as well as their Test Pilots and Engineers).
How would a pilot at the controls prevent someone from walking into the main rotor?
I'll admit if the pilot operating the aircraft remains at the controls he is at least one individual who can't walk into the M/R. If he had walked in front of a ramp vehicle and got struck and killed would the NTSB still say the probable cause was because he was out walking around while his helicopter was at idle?
Seems a bit of a stretch.
I'll admit if the pilot operating the aircraft remains at the controls he is at least one individual who can't walk into the M/R. If he had walked in front of a ramp vehicle and got struck and killed would the NTSB still say the probable cause was because he was out walking around while his helicopter was at idle?
Seems a bit of a stretch.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the camp that it can be done safely. Heck I did it 4 or 5 times today in the process of spraying 500 acres of wheat.
The point is that there are people out there that are under the assumption that by turning off the hydraulic switch in certain aircraft it locks the controls which it doesn't. The frictions should be used if it has to be done.
The point is that there are people out there that are under the assumption that by turning off the hydraulic switch in certain aircraft it locks the controls which it doesn't. The frictions should be used if it has to be done.
"Just a pilot"
Implying that it's more convenient/easier/quicker to leave the aircraft running versus shut down/restart puzzle me. My experience is exactly the opposite, at least single engine. Sounds a bit puritanical to me.
Perhaps a couple decades in the Rubber Ducky, also known as the AS350, have hazed my recollection. Lock the collective, tighten the cyclic friction, do the interminable paper work, and enjoy the heated/cooled air staying dry. It's short-coupled stiff legged beast, so the skids might shift, but I'm sitting at the controls.
Versus double checking how the aircraft sits, locking the collective, leveling the disk, applying sufficient twist on the cyclic friction that I'm positive it isn't moving (the French must be very supple with clamp-like grips), sliding the seat back, undoing my harness, unfolding from the seat to exit, watching the tail rotor like a hawk as I walk about- pilots have walked into their own TR- and doing my ground recon (Yes, LRP, I remember). Then reverse the process. The cyclic friction knob is always more difficult when decreasing friction.
The ground recon in and of itself justifies the work, especially at night. I don't lay rocks and chips, but I do carry an intense 'torch' (flashlight) to scan the immediate overhead for wires, the ground itself for less obvious hazards (fire ant mounds are also a real problem for my crew), and then the perimeter skyline for occult wires. Company policy is that I not use a hazardous LZ, but the high/low recon are conducted in high workload situations, ad the ground crew's preparatory evaluation is done by, well- amateurs.
Helicopters go where it's less efficient for ground transport. There are very real risks in shutting down/restarting: batteries, starter generators, relays, etc. I might opt to leave the pig running instead of discovering a start maintenance fault 3 hours by ground from pavement, or even more embarrassing- on a major traffic artery. If everything works, I can start before the nurse closes the medic door, walks around and buckles in. It's much easier to do that.
Perhaps a couple decades in the Rubber Ducky, also known as the AS350, have hazed my recollection. Lock the collective, tighten the cyclic friction, do the interminable paper work, and enjoy the heated/cooled air staying dry. It's short-coupled stiff legged beast, so the skids might shift, but I'm sitting at the controls.
Versus double checking how the aircraft sits, locking the collective, leveling the disk, applying sufficient twist on the cyclic friction that I'm positive it isn't moving (the French must be very supple with clamp-like grips), sliding the seat back, undoing my harness, unfolding from the seat to exit, watching the tail rotor like a hawk as I walk about- pilots have walked into their own TR- and doing my ground recon (Yes, LRP, I remember). Then reverse the process. The cyclic friction knob is always more difficult when decreasing friction.
The ground recon in and of itself justifies the work, especially at night. I don't lay rocks and chips, but I do carry an intense 'torch' (flashlight) to scan the immediate overhead for wires, the ground itself for less obvious hazards (fire ant mounds are also a real problem for my crew), and then the perimeter skyline for occult wires. Company policy is that I not use a hazardous LZ, but the high/low recon are conducted in high workload situations, ad the ground crew's preparatory evaluation is done by, well- amateurs.
Helicopters go where it's less efficient for ground transport. There are very real risks in shutting down/restarting: batteries, starter generators, relays, etc. I might opt to leave the pig running instead of discovering a start maintenance fault 3 hours by ground from pavement, or even more embarrassing- on a major traffic artery. If everything works, I can start before the nurse closes the medic door, walks around and buckles in. It's much easier to do that.
student pilots at Fort Wolters
The nice old OH-23D for me, Class 67-3.
Don't forget we were either solo or with our stick buddy.
No innocent passengers nearby to pay for our mistakes.
Many years ago a crew picked up a brand new 206(L?) at the Bell factory.
On the way back to their company (west coast?) they flew past Pikes Peak and stopped at the peak to take a few photos.
Both wanted to be in the photos and not wanting to shut down due to the altitude they frictioned everything and got out.
The camera was set up to take several photos, which it did.
The photos showed how the two crew watched the new 206 slide off the mountain into the valley below!
Must have been interesting talking to the owners, etc.
I wonder what story they had to tell
Don't forget we were either solo or with our stick buddy.
No innocent passengers nearby to pay for our mistakes.
Many years ago a crew picked up a brand new 206(L?) at the Bell factory.
On the way back to their company (west coast?) they flew past Pikes Peak and stopped at the peak to take a few photos.
Both wanted to be in the photos and not wanting to shut down due to the altitude they frictioned everything and got out.
The camera was set up to take several photos, which it did.
The photos showed how the two crew watched the new 206 slide off the mountain into the valley below!
Must have been interesting talking to the owners, etc.
I wonder what story they had to tell
SAS: calm down dear.
Rules were invented to control the average punter. Because the average human really does need looking after after centuries of softening up with restrictions on anything and everything.
After all we are human therefore we err.
Pilots (and I know you're going to find this hard to swallow) are not anything special. They 'cock up' like all other walks of life, the problem is, when they do, it's usually when they have a lethal weapon in their possession.
I am sure there are many pilots out there who do this day in and day out - successfully. BUT it is still inherently dangerous and when one considers that the average pilot is just another human, so called experts with the wisdom and authority afforded them by our lords and masters serve to ALARP the risk of inflicting serious harm or death by handing a lethal weapon over to 'just another human'.
Like it or leave it SASSY, it's designed to protect most humans, most of the time.
But helo pilots are real men and so the rules don't apply in this case.......
Rules were invented to control the average punter. Because the average human really does need looking after after centuries of softening up with restrictions on anything and everything.
After all we are human therefore we err.
Pilots (and I know you're going to find this hard to swallow) are not anything special. They 'cock up' like all other walks of life, the problem is, when they do, it's usually when they have a lethal weapon in their possession.
I am sure there are many pilots out there who do this day in and day out - successfully. BUT it is still inherently dangerous and when one considers that the average pilot is just another human, so called experts with the wisdom and authority afforded them by our lords and masters serve to ALARP the risk of inflicting serious harm or death by handing a lethal weapon over to 'just another human'.
Like it or leave it SASSY, it's designed to protect most humans, most of the time.
But helo pilots are real men and so the rules don't apply in this case.......
I suppose like many endeavors....as long as the system ensures mediocrity and relieving the participants from having to actually think about what they are doing...we will continue to see accidents caused by stupid people because the system ensures there are more of them in the affected population.
The presence of more Rules does not necessarily translate to fewer accidents.
You might consider what this study has to say when it compares Helicopter EMS Accident Rates for the UK, Germany, Australia, and the USA.
What is significant is the Study did not consider the impact of Night and IFR/IMC Operations on the Accident Rates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662871
The presence of more Rules does not necessarily translate to fewer accidents.
You might consider what this study has to say when it compares Helicopter EMS Accident Rates for the UK, Germany, Australia, and the USA.
What is significant is the Study did not consider the impact of Night and IFR/IMC Operations on the Accident Rates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24662871