Guimbal Cabri G2
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Czech republic
Age: 50
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reely340
Now, the "normal app. profile" I've been trained to follow is to avoid the H-V curve, meaning "at the bottom" I'd have to be at 3-6 feet doing 50 kts.
I just want to point out that the HV chart is not designed for approach and landing (your shaded area would look very different). 50kt at 3-5 feet is ok for runway landing, but I would not like to be doing 50kt that close to the ground while landing on helipad. I have been taught the same way as you on my ppl course in EU and spent quite lot of energy to re-learn it during my further training in the states. Now I definitelly prefere constant angle approach with as smooth power changes as possible with loaded disc towards the end of approach. Pretty much going through ETL while getting into groung effect. That way I can avoid some possible suprises and maybe that is one of the reasons I have no problem to go from G2 to R44 an back...
Last edited by Masak; 21st Oct 2015 at 10:03. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GS - you make some very good points, a lot of the early accidents in R22's were due to a lack of experience with the helicopter type and some of its idiosyncratic behaviour. Robinson themselves have released hundreds of service notes around how to operate the R22 and R44 in light of the accidents they were seeing, two of the most noted being push overs and low G loading the disc and RRPM decay and the incorrect procedure to correct it.
Couple this to how a person was trained and how that person is as a pilot and accidents do happen. If all the accidents with the G2 were attributed to a single factor, say the fenestron, and pilots lack of awareness with these types of fans then the manufacturer would have acted.
Still too early IMO to draw any meaningful conclusions, apparently there is a 4 seater and turbine model on the cards so will wait to try one of those...
Couple this to how a person was trained and how that person is as a pilot and accidents do happen. If all the accidents with the G2 were attributed to a single factor, say the fenestron, and pilots lack of awareness with these types of fans then the manufacturer would have acted.
Still too early IMO to draw any meaningful conclusions, apparently there is a 4 seater and turbine model on the cards so will wait to try one of those...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sotiras
I see no contradiction. The reports to date make no mention of mechanical failure. Therefore a fully operational machine has crashed. It may well be that particular handling is required (or certain flight conditions avoided) due to a design shortcoming (e.g. avoidance of low G pushovers in an R22), or it may be that the design needs altering to make it easier to handle the aircraft safely (e.g. adding tip weights to the main rotors of the R22). The early R22 was not generally crashing due to mechanical failure, it was due to handling errors (granted, it was particularly unforgiving of inappropriate handling). The same appears to be true of the G2. However, is it because the design is unforgiving, or inadequate training, or because people just aren't respecting it (again that comes under training), or a combination of factors - who knows? As I say, time will probably provide the answers and then the accident rate will reduce considerably. I certainly won't be buying one until it does.
I see no contradiction. The reports to date make no mention of mechanical failure. Therefore a fully operational machine has crashed. It may well be that particular handling is required (or certain flight conditions avoided) due to a design shortcoming (e.g. avoidance of low G pushovers in an R22), or it may be that the design needs altering to make it easier to handle the aircraft safely (e.g. adding tip weights to the main rotors of the R22). The early R22 was not generally crashing due to mechanical failure, it was due to handling errors (granted, it was particularly unforgiving of inappropriate handling). The same appears to be true of the G2. However, is it because the design is unforgiving, or inadequate training, or because people just aren't respecting it (again that comes under training), or a combination of factors - who knows? As I say, time will probably provide the answers and then the accident rate will reduce considerably. I certainly won't be buying one until it does.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Reely
I am totally on nigels side. I donīt understand this left or right turning which pedal do I have to kick as well.
I flew both versions as well and canīt remember a mix-up. I was taught to kick the right (as in correct) pedal for lift off.
I am totally on nigels side. I donīt understand this left or right turning which pedal do I have to kick as well.
I flew both versions as well and canīt remember a mix-up. I was taught to kick the right (as in correct) pedal for lift off.
I just want to point out that the HV chart is not designed for approach and landing (your shaded area would look very different). 50kt at 3-5 feet is ok for runway landing, but I would not like to be doing 50kt that close to the ground while landing on helipad. I have been taught the same way as you on my ppl course in EU and spent quite lot of energy to re-learn it during my further training in the states. Now I definitelly prefere constant angle approach with as smooth power changes as possible with loaded disc towards the end of approach.
The "H-V takeoff and landing" is definitely meant to be used as guidance for any runway takeoffs and landings. I've personally seen some big helo in Starvanger do exactly that H-V compilant takeof on Starvanger airport. Entering the hashed section of the H-V means that the pilot deliberately operates under circumstance "where a safe autorotation has NOT been demonstrated by the manufacturer", definitely a no-no for commercial runway ops.
The environment you are referring to is what my FTO called "approach to elevated helipad".
(we'd use a section of meadow raised 3 ft above the surrounding, app. 5 yards in diameter)
In this case all of them FIs insist that one travels along a straight line to the helipad, all H-V stuff is irrelevant, as one is meant to NOT need any excessive pitch or flare. The perfect approach is completed a good 30 ft before touchdown point, with regard to control input. They claim that would be the only safe way to approch a mountain landing zone, which typically is not providing any ground effect, and always running the risk of SWP.
The H-V compliant runway type is bullet proof as you always can enter flare and/or autorotation,
the mountain-LZ / elevated heliapd approach is inherently dangerous as you HAVE to be
in H-V constallations from where you cann't safely autorotate.
Of course we almost exclusively practize the helipad approach, as it requires much more precise planning and power control.
Last edited by Reely340; 21st Oct 2015 at 19:07.
I am totally on nigels side. I donīt understand this left or right turning which pedal do I have to kick as well.
From motorcycle riding I know that I do develop automatic muscle procedures. These are a PITA when, on vacation in Thailand, you get to ride a bike where neutral is not beetween 1st and 2nd but below 1st.
Of course it could well be, that I'm misjudging the issues when switching from left to right rotors, and them Cabri incidents were fenestron induced only.
My concern was that "waiting for a reason to alter pedal input"
(because pitch hand weren't coupled to power-foot as you and Nigel explained)
might be a less profound way of yaw control in a fenestron ship compared
to doing the counter torque work before the necessity to do so surfaces.
I think you slightly misunderstand my point ! I don't profess to have special ability or peripheral vision 
When I take off , every time , I get the aircraft light on its skids and see the effect of pedal input .....before ..I take off.
This way I re aquaint myself with the rotor direction , can see what power I have available ...and also get a warning if there is any t/r problem whilst still being able to use friction to stop any radical moves . It has saved me possible serious problems more than once including once having lost t/r servo which I didn't notice during start up ( I know , I should have but I didnt !)
A reliance on predicting what's needed can make smoother flying ,but at the end of the day you have to be prepared to put in ANY pedal , and maybe a whole bunch of it if that's is needed , regardless of what you muscle memory tells you you should be doing .
Sorry , slightly off track as May not be relevant to this problem !
When I take off , every time , I get the aircraft light on its skids and see the effect of pedal input .....before ..I take off.This way I re aquaint myself with the rotor direction , can see what power I have available ...and also get a warning if there is any t/r problem whilst still being able to use friction to stop any radical moves . It has saved me possible serious problems more than once including once having lost t/r servo which I didn't notice during start up ( I know , I should have but I didnt !)
A reliance on predicting what's needed can make smoother flying ,but at the end of the day you have to be prepared to put in ANY pedal , and maybe a whole bunch of it if that's is needed , regardless of what you muscle memory tells you you should be doing .
Sorry , slightly off track as May not be relevant to this problem !
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From motorcycle riding I know that I do develop automatic muscle procedures. These are a PITA when, on vacation in Thailand, you get to ride a bike where neutral is not beetween 1st and 2nd but below 1st.
I've never had the opportunity to fly a clockwise turning main rotor system, but I'd hope that after a few hours of check-out I'd be able to shift "modes" just as easily as I did on motorcycles.
Interesting discussion!
Amazing info, thx.
But that experience of you and Nigel with regard to rotor direction sort of contradicts chalmondleigh's post #871
His post was what triggered my curious research into Cabri yaw accidents.
But that experience of you and Nigel with regard to rotor direction sort of contradicts chalmondleigh's post #871
The chances are that low hours Cabri instructors will also be high hours Robinson instructors and, especially if switching types between consecutive flights, have been known to get muddled and fail to apply sufficient right pedal. Some UK Flight Schools now prohibit low hours Cabri Instructors from switching back and forth to other types on the same day until they have accumalated a substantial number of Cabri hours.
Well,
when i had my first flight in a helicopter with a different direction turning mainrotor, I pushed the wrong pedal as well.
BUT - if you stop doing things in advance and start to do reacting on the birds behaviour, its no problem at all.
Just be smooth on the controls and feel the bird - less stress for the aircraft - less stress for you ;-)
when i had my first flight in a helicopter with a different direction turning mainrotor, I pushed the wrong pedal as well.
BUT - if you stop doing things in advance and start to do reacting on the birds behaviour, its no problem at all.
Just be smooth on the controls and feel the bird - less stress for the aircraft - less stress for you ;-)
Hi maddmatt,
donīt know, why they put the Bo105 into the poor - area....
O.K., itīs coming down much faster than i.e. a JetRanger - but it could take quite a beating...
Did ones an AR with a run on speed of 30 kts (NVG-training)....
donīt know, why they put the Bo105 into the poor - area....
O.K., itīs coming down much faster than i.e. a JetRanger - but it could take quite a beating...
Did ones an AR with a run on speed of 30 kts (NVG-training)....
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must just be due to the criteria the US Army used. The BO105 looks like a brick compared to the others in the very good half.
Having read up on the G2 my only comment would be usability, MGW is 700kg, empty weight is 420kg, so doesn't leave a lot (280kgs). On their website they show a woman putting a load of luggage into a G2!! If she is like my wife the pilot would have to weigh 30kgs!!
Having read up on the G2 my only comment would be usability, MGW is 700kg, empty weight is 420kg, so doesn't leave a lot (280kgs). On their website they show a woman putting a load of luggage into a G2!! If she is like my wife the pilot would have to weigh 30kgs!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note there is no R44 on that chart, yet the price tag of a G2 sits smack in the middle of those of a brand new Raven I and Raven II. The R22 is a considerably cheaper helicopter.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the best training helicopter is determined by what the student expects to fly next.
So, although the R22 was never designed to be a trainer, it may be the default consideration for someone progressing to R44/R66/B206.
The S300C makes sense for most other US helicopters (MDs, Enstroms, Bells, etc) and the G2 for most European helicopters (ECs, Gazelles, etc).
The little Cabri may be the future, but they owe Sikorsky a huge debt of gratitude for their dereliction of duty to the S300. The 'C' in particular is still a 'world class' helicopter.
Mind you, that may be what also prompted Enstrom to develop the new TH180.
So, although the R22 was never designed to be a trainer, it may be the default consideration for someone progressing to R44/R66/B206.
The S300C makes sense for most other US helicopters (MDs, Enstroms, Bells, etc) and the G2 for most European helicopters (ECs, Gazelles, etc).
The little Cabri may be the future, but they owe Sikorsky a huge debt of gratitude for their dereliction of duty to the S300. The 'C' in particular is still a 'world class' helicopter.
Mind you, that may be what also prompted Enstrom to develop the new TH180.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R22 accidents since Cabri certification
GS-A
The Cabri was certified at the end of 2007 since when , according to the US NTSB database, there have been 225 R22 accidents resulting in 46 fatalities.
Foreign registered aircraft are shown but I spotted at least one UK fatal R22 accident that was not shown. The actual total may therefore be somewhat greater.
Looking at one of your earlier posts on this thread you do mention that of the 7 R22s which you have flown, 3 have been written off and included a fatality. An overall 43% accident rate and a 14% fatal accident rate does look overly impressive.
As you say in your earlier post, perhaps you should give the Cabri a try so that you can judge for yourself.
The Cabri was certified at the end of 2007 since when , according to the US NTSB database, there have been 225 R22 accidents resulting in 46 fatalities.
Foreign registered aircraft are shown but I spotted at least one UK fatal R22 accident that was not shown. The actual total may therefore be somewhat greater.
Looking at one of your earlier posts on this thread you do mention that of the 7 R22s which you have flown, 3 have been written off and included a fatality. An overall 43% accident rate and a 14% fatal accident rate does look overly impressive.
As you say in your earlier post, perhaps you should give the Cabri a try so that you can judge for yourself.