Engine Failure on take off - do you teach it?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere in the FIR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gomer Pilot
I've never flown a Robinson, but I have flown TH55s and AS350s, and they lose rotor RPM in a heartbeat. You have to learn to deal with it, though
If you think the squirel looses rrpm in a heartbeat, you should really see what happens in a R22 on take off with 24" manifold pressure being pulled from the engine, while hurtling along the runway at 45kts around 10 ft off ground and out of the avoid curve!
Even at 150 ft and 24" manifold pressure, i for one, would make sure having 60kts on the nose, that the manifold pressure was reduced to 20"-21" prior to shouting "Practice engine failure". Even at that, teaching this to various pre PPL H will somewhere down the line,
have consequences
Do you really think any pre PPL H, could carry out that manouvre safelly time after time? And i for one, would not like to sit next to the student trying to learn it on a regular basis, as it would be a matter of time before the aircraft would be bent and i'd be looking for another aircraft and for that matter a student.
I like to have a cup of tea on a de brief after flights with students, not a stiff brandy and then never see the student again!
I'm with vital actions on this one.
HJ
I've never flown a Robinson, but I have flown TH55s and AS350s, and they lose rotor RPM in a heartbeat. You have to learn to deal with it, though
If you think the squirel looses rrpm in a heartbeat, you should really see what happens in a R22 on take off with 24" manifold pressure being pulled from the engine, while hurtling along the runway at 45kts around 10 ft off ground and out of the avoid curve!
Even at 150 ft and 24" manifold pressure, i for one, would make sure having 60kts on the nose, that the manifold pressure was reduced to 20"-21" prior to shouting "Practice engine failure". Even at that, teaching this to various pre PPL H will somewhere down the line,
have consequencesDo you really think any pre PPL H, could carry out that manouvre safelly time after time? And i for one, would not like to sit next to the student trying to learn it on a regular basis, as it would be a matter of time before the aircraft would be bent and i'd be looking for another aircraft and for that matter a student.
I like to have a cup of tea on a de brief after flights with students, not a stiff brandy and then never see the student again!
I'm with vital actions on this one.
HJ
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to offend anyone, but if you're a Robbie instructor, and you can't do a successful auto during takeoff, then maybe you shouldn't be a Robbie instructor
Hmmm, to say that, then in the next breath state that you have never flown a Robbie...
I concur totally with Vital Actions and Heli-Jock. there is no comparison between a 350 and R22. You could yawn while doing the Times crossword and sipping your coffee while doing this exercise in a 350, whereas if you get it ever so slightly wrong in an R22, you better hope some paramedic will be strapping you to a spinal board and rushing you to the local A&E PDQ after extracating you from the mangled remains of your R22...
BC
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Here, There and Everywhere!!
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is if a student on solo has any kind of engine failure i think they would be toast.
No matter where the failure occurs i can pretty much say out of the last 100 students ive had for stage checks - none of them would succesfully land an R22 if it went quiet.
Risk management is the key - how many students will go through that 'Lack of experiance' period without a failure Vs those that would get a failure..
Again showing these on a daily basis is a very risky business but i feel if a student has seen one a couple of times they MIGHT stand a chance of walking away.
I for one would question if i could land an R22 unscratched from an enigine failure until i had 500 hours in it. Until then its all about walking away from a wreckage.
R22
No matter where the failure occurs i can pretty much say out of the last 100 students ive had for stage checks - none of them would succesfully land an R22 if it went quiet.
Risk management is the key - how many students will go through that 'Lack of experiance' period without a failure Vs those that would get a failure..
Again showing these on a daily basis is a very risky business but i feel if a student has seen one a couple of times they MIGHT stand a chance of walking away.
I for one would question if i could land an R22 unscratched from an enigine failure until i had 500 hours in it. Until then its all about walking away from a wreckage.
R22
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a training aircraft that is nearly impossible it seems (no I haven't flown them) to auto safely during takeoff.
Who said anything about duty of care to your 1st solo student.....Lucky it's cheap to run, doesn't apear to have many other redeeming features in that role.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At the risk of thread creep... after teaching in the 300, the R44, and the R22... I don't think the R22 is a good training heli at all. It feels 'unstable', constantly wants to pitch up and roll, is hard to auto, very unforgiving.
Yes, students get used to all that, but even so...
I notice that people on trial lessons more often take up the PPL after flying the 300, compared to the R22. It's a shame the 300 is more expensive and hardly anyone operates them in the UK.
Yes, students get used to all that, but even so...
I notice that people on trial lessons more often take up the PPL after flying the 300, compared to the R22. It's a shame the 300 is more expensive and hardly anyone operates them in the UK.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that a solo student isn't likely to make a perfect landing after an engine failure, from any flight regime, but he should be able to walk away from the bent metal. Otherwise he shouldn't be solo. An instructor, though, should be able to do a successful auto if he initiates it himself. If he can't do that, then he needs to do some thinking about his choice of vocation.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere in the FIR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walking away from the bent metal would be fine for the student on a slol, "IF" he succesfully entered auto in the first place! !
I'm with R22 Driver here. Out of the students i've flown with or checked out, unless you are very familiar with the R22 and have few hundred hours under your belt and frequently practice auto's, i very much doubt if any of these pre PPL H's or PPL's would enter auto on an engine failure in flight.
I think a high percentage would be toast after it all went quiet
However we should remember that there, (as far as i am aware after a visit to Robinson California in Nov 2006), have been only 2 recorded engine failures in they're aircrafts since 1973! Not a bad record in my book. According to figures they showed us, it has the best statistics for a lack of engine failures in any helicopter to date.
I would aslso like to say that any PPL H's out there with minimum time on type should always have an instructor on board if they intend sharpening up they're reflex's on auto's.
HJ
I'm with R22 Driver here. Out of the students i've flown with or checked out, unless you are very familiar with the R22 and have few hundred hours under your belt and frequently practice auto's, i very much doubt if any of these pre PPL H's or PPL's would enter auto on an engine failure in flight.
I think a high percentage would be toast after it all went quiet
However we should remember that there, (as far as i am aware after a visit to Robinson California in Nov 2006), have been only 2 recorded engine failures in they're aircrafts since 1973! Not a bad record in my book. According to figures they showed us, it has the best statistics for a lack of engine failures in any helicopter to date.
I would aslso like to say that any PPL H's out there with minimum time on type should always have an instructor on board if they intend sharpening up they're reflex's on auto's.
HJ
The duty of care angle is interesting, how many R22 instructors would be comfortable suffering an engine failure after take off on an instructional sortie ? How many would be comfortable teaching it to a Power Recovery and subsequent hover ?
Most other types (homebuilts excluded) feel like they have a reasonable chance of the aircraft surviving an EFATO, if flown within the limits in the Flight Manual.
Maybe a good reason for training in a helicopter that was designed for it in the first place (not a dig at R22s, just an observation). Its not the R22s fault that we use them for purposes that they were not originally designed for.
Most other types (homebuilts excluded) feel like they have a reasonable chance of the aircraft surviving an EFATO, if flown within the limits in the Flight Manual.
Maybe a good reason for training in a helicopter that was designed for it in the first place (not a dig at R22s, just an observation). Its not the R22s fault that we use them for purposes that they were not originally designed for.
Robinson may well be able to say that only 2 engine failures have occured, but a quick look at the accident figures, gives a different view if you include things that caused the engine to stop like broken fuel vents, and engines stopping for reasons not directly related to the engine itself (Carb Icing) the figures are different.
From the UK alone
At least two blocked fuel vents, one instance valve sticking causing engine power loss at night which was fatal. Another which caused a write off. At least 5 suspected carb icing instances that I can think of which lead to the loss of the aircraft, 2 of which may have contributed to fatal accidents.
The engine doesn't need to fail or even stop for the airframe to be involved in a crash.
I'll provide some links later if anyone is interested.
From the UK alone
At least two blocked fuel vents, one instance valve sticking causing engine power loss at night which was fatal. Another which caused a write off. At least 5 suspected carb icing instances that I can think of which lead to the loss of the aircraft, 2 of which may have contributed to fatal accidents.
The engine doesn't need to fail or even stop for the airframe to be involved in a crash.
I'll provide some links later if anyone is interested.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFATO's should certainly be demo'd to students by instructors, they are not impossible to do, they just take a high level of skill and proficiency to do safely. The chances of a solo student doing one for real safely would be slim, but if they initiated an auto properly the end result should stiill be survivable.
As VeeAny said, the R22 was NOT designed as a training helicopter. Anyone who trains in one should bear in mind that although they may be cheaper than other helicopters designed for training, you have to accept the higher risk.
BC
As VeeAny said, the R22 was NOT designed as a training helicopter. Anyone who trains in one should bear in mind that although they may be cheaper than other helicopters designed for training, you have to accept the higher risk.
BC
Cullear1
A link to the accident reports that I can filter out for engine related things in R22s.
http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk...=&Month=&Year=
[I'll move this to the helicopter safety site soon, so expect the URL to be changed shortly].
Also the engine events page from helisafety shows quite a few, not necessarily EFATO but valid nonetheless. http://www.helicopter-safety.org.uk/...ngine%20Events
Remember that this not just engine failure but anything that caused engine power loss or engine stoppage in an R22, the consequences being similar for all of them once airborne.
GS
A link to the accident reports that I can filter out for engine related things in R22s.
http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk...=&Month=&Year=
[I'll move this to the helicopter safety site soon, so expect the URL to be changed shortly].
Also the engine events page from helisafety shows quite a few, not necessarily EFATO but valid nonetheless. http://www.helicopter-safety.org.uk/...ngine%20Events
Remember that this not just engine failure but anything that caused engine power loss or engine stoppage in an R22, the consequences being similar for all of them once airborne.
GS
Last edited by VeeAny; 20th Apr 2008 at 08:06. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona USA
Age: 47
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen it demo'd once, to a full down, in an R22. There is NO way you could teach any student with less than 100 hours to accomplish this in the R22 without destroying the AC. Even getting a pre-solo student to comprehend what just happened would be a monumental task. Perhaps if all you did was EFOTA all day, every day.
Simple fact is the Robbie's engines are more reliable than most turbines, the average student (in the US) on the "1000 hour" program has fewer than 20 hours of solo time in those 1000 hours. Half of those X-C. Your chances of a mechanic forgetting to torque down a pitch link are greater, and we don't train for that. Why? Risk management 101.
In the US, SFAR 73 exists exactly for comments like Gomer's. Pilots who have never flown an R22 do not have an appreciation for the low inertia of the rotor system. This is why there were so many early accidents with RPM decay. I certainly agree it is irresponsible to not seek out this training in the R22 if you intend to operate them regularly, however it should be performed by a high time, well seasoned instructor as part of an advanced training course.
You'll note that "high time," "well seasoned," and "advanced training" have little to do with most R22 training.
Simple fact is the Robbie's engines are more reliable than most turbines, the average student (in the US) on the "1000 hour" program has fewer than 20 hours of solo time in those 1000 hours. Half of those X-C. Your chances of a mechanic forgetting to torque down a pitch link are greater, and we don't train for that. Why? Risk management 101.
In the US, SFAR 73 exists exactly for comments like Gomer's. Pilots who have never flown an R22 do not have an appreciation for the low inertia of the rotor system. This is why there were so many early accidents with RPM decay. I certainly agree it is irresponsible to not seek out this training in the R22 if you intend to operate them regularly, however it should be performed by a high time, well seasoned instructor as part of an advanced training course.
You'll note that "high time," "well seasoned," and "advanced training" have little to do with most R22 training.
Last edited by FauxZ; 20th Apr 2008 at 06:32. Reason: formatting
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do you think happens to the poor student who has the engine quit on takeoff while solo, and has never even had the maneuver demonstrated?
Does anyone have the statistics for EFATO in the R22? What about those for EFATO with a student pilot in command? What are the actual odds?
It's probably taboo to even suggest this, but am I the only person who thinks that maybe we spend far too much time worrying about engine failures in difficult-to-survive situations, when they very rarely happen? Meanwhile low hours pilots regularly kill themselves flying into power lines, flying in unsuitable weather, or just...flying badly. Human error kills far more pilots than engine failure in the R22 - no I don't need the stats to back it up; I'm sure! So do we even need to be discussing this any further?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flapper
I'm not an instructor but fly with some very low time co-pilots at times. And the things I stress on this issue are just the basics. I'm not talking during bush operations, but when we have the option to do it more safely, I try to take it...well, much of the time
I stress keeping the disc as flat as possible with minimum power, keeping the airframe close to level for minimum attitude adjustment in case we experience an 'event' and need to set down.....If we are in on an airfield and taxiing to holding for example. Keep any available line between your knees and use it as an aid to keeping straight during the 'event'...Using the knees as a gunsight. I had one or two check airmen comment over the years such as..."Get on the centerline" but once explained it was accepted...I continue the early part of the takeoff with the centerline (if any) between my knees or the other guy doing it with his legs.
If the failure happens and you screw up the collective cushioning, you might get a 'lively' event to tell your mates about, but you will generally keep it on its feet...And thats gonna get you an A+ right there!
Tracking straight is obviously the most critical issue during transition from hover to forward flight. Keep the wheels or skids going in exactly the same direction as the mast...A student can screw up the rest and will generally have a survivable event. But no matter how great the 'cushioning or settling is' if your going westbound on a southbound bus it could end in tears...
I know this is flying 101, but if you reinforce this or similar every time with your students, I think you've met your 'duty of care' adequately without repeated exposure to you, the studes and the airframe if the machine has a super low inertia system...And if you demonstrate critical failure regularly, and regardless of how current or skilled you are. Eventually the odds could get you, and we all know! One Oh ****! ruins all the attaboys
Just an opinion and good luck with the opposing views.
170'
I'm not an instructor but fly with some very low time co-pilots at times. And the things I stress on this issue are just the basics. I'm not talking during bush operations, but when we have the option to do it more safely, I try to take it...well, much of the time
I stress keeping the disc as flat as possible with minimum power, keeping the airframe close to level for minimum attitude adjustment in case we experience an 'event' and need to set down.....If we are in on an airfield and taxiing to holding for example. Keep any available line between your knees and use it as an aid to keeping straight during the 'event'...Using the knees as a gunsight. I had one or two check airmen comment over the years such as..."Get on the centerline" but once explained it was accepted...I continue the early part of the takeoff with the centerline (if any) between my knees or the other guy doing it with his legs.
If the failure happens and you screw up the collective cushioning, you might get a 'lively' event to tell your mates about, but you will generally keep it on its feet...And thats gonna get you an A+ right there!
Tracking straight is obviously the most critical issue during transition from hover to forward flight. Keep the wheels or skids going in exactly the same direction as the mast...A student can screw up the rest and will generally have a survivable event. But no matter how great the 'cushioning or settling is' if your going westbound on a southbound bus it could end in tears...
I know this is flying 101, but if you reinforce this or similar every time with your students, I think you've met your 'duty of care' adequately without repeated exposure to you, the studes and the airframe if the machine has a super low inertia system...And if you demonstrate critical failure regularly, and regardless of how current or skilled you are. Eventually the odds could get you, and we all know! One Oh ****! ruins all the attaboys
Just an opinion and good luck with the opposing views.
170'
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An absolute excellent post 170.
this is the clincher for any doubters.
And it's to yourself you have demonstrated it as well as the student, but doing it you've also enjoyed contributing, I bet.
They say that NOT anyone can make a horse, and it's a tad more difficult with our species, but pure crystal when you see the demonstration of your efforts rewarded.
Although we all use different terminology.
I will say;
keep the lever down as far as possible alla time so's you have heaps to pull up.
Where you say;
I will say, If at low level and an uncomfortable height always try for airspeed attitude potential.
Where-as you say;
all schemantics.
particularly the reference at low level to always having a spot in sight etc.
Had the great privilege of checking out our newest pilot the other day, a thorough gentleman with possibly 15K hours, he lapped it all up better than any newbie.
BTW before then he had only ever done a VRS and recovery excercise with Frank's school went he went visiting some years ago.
That says heaps to me. I hope they are still doing it.
I remember reading some years ago that the F/W highest engine failure incidence was on the first power alteration after take off. disregarding carby ice , it certainly makes sense. however I think most rotary gaffs are for other reasons.
tet
this is the clincher for any doubters.
you've met your 'duty of care'
They say that NOT anyone can make a horse, and it's a tad more difficult with our species, but pure crystal when you see the demonstration of your efforts rewarded.
Although we all use different terminology.
I will say;
keep the lever down as far as possible alla time so's you have heaps to pull up.
Where you say;
keeping the disc as flat as possible with minimum power
Where-as you say;
keeping the airframe close to level for minimum attitude adjustment
particularly the reference at low level to always having a spot in sight etc.
Had the great privilege of checking out our newest pilot the other day, a thorough gentleman with possibly 15K hours, he lapped it all up better than any newbie.
BTW before then he had only ever done a VRS and recovery excercise with Frank's school went he went visiting some years ago.
That says heaps to me. I hope they are still doing it.
I remember reading some years ago that the F/W highest engine failure incidence was on the first power alteration after take off. disregarding carby ice , it certainly makes sense. however I think most rotary gaffs are for other reasons.
tet
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
most prudent operators wouldn't let newly qualified instructors do EOL's to the ground due to the lack of experience and the risk of bending the machine, same for EFATO. I would check with your CFI before "trying one out with a student to see how it goes"
I'm also surprised that you are asking this forum how to teach failure after T/O when this should have been done on your instructors course. Why have you not taken the oportunity of doing these exercises when you do an LPC with a more experienced examiner or go out and do some with your CFI ?
most prudent operators wouldn't let newly qualified instructors do EOL's to the ground due to the lack of experience and the risk of bending the machine, same for EFATO. I would check with your CFI before "trying one out with a student to see how it goes"
I'm also surprised that you are asking this forum how to teach failure after T/O when this should have been done on your instructors course. Why have you not taken the oportunity of doing these exercises when you do an LPC with a more experienced examiner or go out and do some with your CFI ?