No autos insurance problem
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No autos insurance problem
Has anyone else had this condition applied to a recent insurance renewal? Read your policy carefully - it might be in there.
There is a new restriction in my policy renewal limiting autorotations to only when an instructor is present. I think this is unreasonable and not in the interests of flight safety, if this means autos to a power recovery (min 100’) are not allowed.
This new condition isn't directed just at me for any reason (PPL, R22 + B47 rated, current aircraft R44, 500 hrs, same insurer, no accidents or claims ever in eighteen years...).
I understand the case for autos to the ground is probably the cause of many accidents and claims and I don’t do these by myself except annually on my LPC with an examiner. This is fair enough and I understand the position of the underwriters on this if enough machines have been bent to cost them significant claims. What is absolutely not reasonable is to prevent routine solo practice of entry into autorotation at a safe height. It is also a perfectly acceptable technique to use autos for rapid descent in certain situations but which is always followed by a power recovery around 150'. Surely to remain in practice is in the wider interests of flight safety?
I'm having real trouble getting agreement out my insurers on this and am about to insist upon this condition being removed otherwise I'm going elsewhere. I was awake enough to renew a few weeks ago on the written condition that this clause be removed. I'm reluctant to change companies as I've had good service from the insurers for many years, but they have to stand their ground with the underwriters.
If most private machines are going to have this condition applied, we should stand together.
There is a new restriction in my policy renewal limiting autorotations to only when an instructor is present. I think this is unreasonable and not in the interests of flight safety, if this means autos to a power recovery (min 100’) are not allowed.
This new condition isn't directed just at me for any reason (PPL, R22 + B47 rated, current aircraft R44, 500 hrs, same insurer, no accidents or claims ever in eighteen years...).
I understand the case for autos to the ground is probably the cause of many accidents and claims and I don’t do these by myself except annually on my LPC with an examiner. This is fair enough and I understand the position of the underwriters on this if enough machines have been bent to cost them significant claims. What is absolutely not reasonable is to prevent routine solo practice of entry into autorotation at a safe height. It is also a perfectly acceptable technique to use autos for rapid descent in certain situations but which is always followed by a power recovery around 150'. Surely to remain in practice is in the wider interests of flight safety?
I'm having real trouble getting agreement out my insurers on this and am about to insist upon this condition being removed otherwise I'm going elsewhere. I was awake enough to renew a few weeks ago on the written condition that this clause be removed. I'm reluctant to change companies as I've had good service from the insurers for many years, but they have to stand their ground with the underwriters.
If most private machines are going to have this condition applied, we should stand together.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill GB
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B47,
Insurers are indeed a tricky lot, I can see why they would place such a clause, but in the normal state of flying you should still be able to practice an Auto to power recovery at every landing you need to do( or nearly every one), that would still be in the bounds of safe flying for the insurers and allow you to be "Pin Sharp" should the need arise for a full blown EOL when and if things ever go quiet, dont you think?
Peter R-B
VfrpilotPb
Insurers are indeed a tricky lot, I can see why they would place such a clause, but in the normal state of flying you should still be able to practice an Auto to power recovery at every landing you need to do( or nearly every one), that would still be in the bounds of safe flying for the insurers and allow you to be "Pin Sharp" should the need arise for a full blown EOL when and if things ever go quiet, dont you think?
Peter R-B
VfrpilotPb
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also a perfectly acceptable technique to use autos for rapid descent in certain situations but which is always followed by a power recovery around 150'
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are you serious? What on Earth are you doing out there that you see the need to enter a power-off auto all the way down to 150'?
I agree, what a daft way to lose height. Just put the power down to 12", that will give you a decent ROD and the governer will still work fine.
I agree with the insurance company. Doing autos when training, to the power recovery, is fine, but there's no need to enter an auto any other time. There's a risk of the engine stopping (incorrect idle adjustment etc), forgetting carb heat, overspeeding the rotor/engine, bringing in the power too late and hitting the ground/something, incorrect recovery (rolling throttle wrong way etc).
The R22 is NOT the Bell 47/Hughes 300, it requires special attention in autorotation, you can lose RPM very quickly.
Imagine someone entering auto to lose height, say the chap also flies fixed-wing, he has a brain fart and pushes the stick forward when entering, RPM dives, horn goes off, he pulls the collective UP, game over. It could easily happen.
I agree, what a daft way to lose height. Just put the power down to 12", that will give you a decent ROD and the governer will still work fine.
I agree with the insurance company. Doing autos when training, to the power recovery, is fine, but there's no need to enter an auto any other time. There's a risk of the engine stopping (incorrect idle adjustment etc), forgetting carb heat, overspeeding the rotor/engine, bringing in the power too late and hitting the ground/something, incorrect recovery (rolling throttle wrong way etc).
The R22 is NOT the Bell 47/Hughes 300, it requires special attention in autorotation, you can lose RPM very quickly.
Imagine someone entering auto to lose height, say the chap also flies fixed-wing, he has a brain fart and pushes the stick forward when entering, RPM dives, horn goes off, he pulls the collective UP, game over. It could easily happen.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall B47 has a 44 (with a small round hole in the side ..). There have been lots of damage based on people entering autorotation in the 44 and rolling the Nr right over the top (no pips to tell you its coming..). The insurers are trying to cover their bases against where the risks are going to occur, and having an FI watching you and the Nr/ RPM while you do it drags the risk right down (AND THE PRICE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE)
h-r
h-r
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In my tank engine
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being an ex-instructor and having seen how many PPLs and some CPLs end up flying 6 months or so after getting there licence (Ex people who don't fly a lot) not a dig at all people many maintain a good standard of flying, but even the better ones can fudge things up when practicing things like autorotation, better to take an instructor along for the ride.
So I can see why the insurace companies would want to do that but you could always change insurance companies.
So I can see why the insurace companies would want to do that but you could always change insurance companies.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However,
If an owner does not practice simple autos between annual LPCs, if he/she needs to do one in anger, you can pretty much GUARANTEE he/she will f**k it up. It is a perishable skill, like most in flying that you do not do every time you fly.
Fly with your fingers crossed - then if it does happen just kiss your a**se goodbye...........
Practice is everything. If it isn't practiced it won't happen when you need it
[This could all be avoided by regular flights with an instructor, but many/most owners avoid that as much as possible]
If an owner does not practice simple autos between annual LPCs, if he/she needs to do one in anger, you can pretty much GUARANTEE he/she will f**k it up. It is a perishable skill, like most in flying that you do not do every time you fly.
Fly with your fingers crossed - then if it does happen just kiss your a**se goodbye...........
Practice is everything. If it isn't practiced it won't happen when you need it
[This could all be avoided by regular flights with an instructor, but many/most owners avoid that as much as possible]
I think this 
is rubbish !!! reducing power down to auto level is part of any steep descent and your insurance co doesnt need to know about it ......do not confer on them intelligence and technical knowledge they do not have ........what they mean is no practice engine failures by yourself which is different . I have always advocated banning autos to the ground solely on the basis that people seem to ( yes mainly robinsons ....)mess it up regularly and this ends up on my insurance 
If you want to do eol,s pay an extra premium or do power recovery which is just as good in my mind. if you then get a real one it really doesnt matter if you mess up the last few feet .
is rubbish !!! reducing power down to auto level is part of any steep descent and your insurance co doesnt need to know about it ......do not confer on them intelligence and technical knowledge they do not have ........what they mean is no practice engine failures by yourself which is different . I have always advocated banning autos to the ground solely on the basis that people seem to ( yes mainly robinsons ....)mess it up regularly and this ends up on my insurance If you want to do eol,s pay an extra premium or do power recovery which is just as good in my mind. if you then get a real one it really doesnt matter if you mess up the last few feet .
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do them all the time , in fact virtually every flight. Noise abatement. I can sneak into the village virtually un-noticed with it at tick over. I'd better dig out the documents and have a read.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is in my policy too. What a lot of crap.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is in my policy too. What a lot of crap.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 39
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone!
Also being an ex-instructor, I have to agree with the insurance companies on this one. A former student (PPL and no intention of doing more) asked me once during training if he should practice autos when flying alone. I told him absolutely not. I could tell you endless stories on how people tried to kill me during practice autos (of course unintentional but they wouldn't be around today if I wouldn't have been there with them).
Point is, if you are PPL and don't fly a lot, I wouldn't recommend practicing autos without an FI. Practice them with one (or at least with an experienced pilot on your side).
If you fly alot and often do autos that's another story (best example are the Robinson Test- and Companypilots, who do an autorotation on every single flight for noise abatement reasons, but then they are all CFIs
)
Now, the insurance company doesn't know how good your autos are, so they put that chapter in there. And if you fly commercially and ask your employer how he/she feels about you doing autos without a good reason, I am pretty sure you will get a NO.
Just my opinion and personal experience.
Also being an ex-instructor, I have to agree with the insurance companies on this one. A former student (PPL and no intention of doing more) asked me once during training if he should practice autos when flying alone. I told him absolutely not. I could tell you endless stories on how people tried to kill me during practice autos (of course unintentional but they wouldn't be around today if I wouldn't have been there with them).
Point is, if you are PPL and don't fly a lot, I wouldn't recommend practicing autos without an FI. Practice them with one (or at least with an experienced pilot on your side).
If you fly alot and often do autos that's another story (best example are the Robinson Test- and Companypilots, who do an autorotation on every single flight for noise abatement reasons, but then they are all CFIs
)Now, the insurance company doesn't know how good your autos are, so they put that chapter in there. And if you fly commercially and ask your employer how he/she feels about you doing autos without a good reason, I am pretty sure you will get a NO.
Just my opinion and personal experience.
Although this probably has nothing to do with this instance, an acquaintance of mine wrecked his Enstrom F-28, doing autos to the runway in advance of his 135 renewal check ride.
The FAA asked him what happened and he said he just blew it, there was no need for further investigation. But he said it had really screwed up his 79th birthday celebrations for that evening!
The FAA asked him what happened and he said he just blew it, there was no need for further investigation. But he said it had really screwed up his 79th birthday celebrations for that evening!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The clause specifically states 'practice autorotation' which I presume is to exclude the losses caused by practice engine failures. Very sensible. However as stated above, I don't do them for practice. I do them for socially acceptable flying and as part of my normal flight profile. Is this excluded? I'll phone Haywards tomorrow and find out.
Is it unusual to use autorotation as a normal flight manoeuvre? I have always done it. Thousands of them literally.
Its a much quieter approach and means that the engine does not need to be cooled down running on the ground for anything like the same amount of time. This is relevant 'off airport'.
Oh yes - don't most autorotation accidents happen WITH an instructor on board??
Is it unusual to use autorotation as a normal flight manoeuvre? I have always done it. Thousands of them literally.
Its a much quieter approach and means that the engine does not need to be cooled down running on the ground for anything like the same amount of time. This is relevant 'off airport'.
Oh yes - don't most autorotation accidents happen WITH an instructor on board??
Last edited by Gaseous; 24th Apr 2008 at 21:47.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 77
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
gaseous, nauseous, you live in la la land mate,
i have read a lot of rubbish in my life and you are up there with the best,
auto's for noise abatement and engine cooling, you cannot be serious, the sad part is you probably are.
i have read a lot of rubbish in my life and you are up there with the best,
auto's for noise abatement and engine cooling, you cannot be serious, the sad part is you probably are.
"I do them for socially acceptable flying and as part of my normal flight profile"
Thanks to the comments above I now have a better understanding as to why private helicopter owners the world over have so many accidents during simple fair weather flights. It's not because of poor autorotation skills. It's because they're convincing themselves that practices like those mentioned in this thread are normal. It's not normal. I can only wonder what other socially acceptable flying practices have been dreamt up by this community.
Thanks to the comments above I now have a better understanding as to why private helicopter owners the world over have so many accidents during simple fair weather flights. It's not because of poor autorotation skills. It's because they're convincing themselves that practices like those mentioned in this thread are normal. It's not normal. I can only wonder what other socially acceptable flying practices have been dreamt up by this community.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a much quieter approach and means that the engine does not need to be cooled down running on the ground for anything like the same amount of time. This is relevant 'off airport'.
The clause specifically states 'practice autorotation' which I presume is to exclude the losses caused by practice engine failures. Very sensible. However as stated above, I don't do them for practice. I do them for socially acceptable flying and as part of my normal flight profile. Is this excluded? I'll phone Haywards tomorrow and find out.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(best example are the Robinson Test- and Companypilots, who do an autorotation on every single flight for noise abatement reasons, but then they are all CFIs )
You got a page number from the "Normal Procedures" section of your RFM to back that remark up?
"Stabilize temperatures at 1800RPM until cylinder temperatures drop to 350 deg f."
Following an auto it is there. There is no need to ground run. My neighbours appreciate that.
Last edited by Gaseous; 25th Apr 2008 at 07:27.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 53
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cool down
Gaseous, what about the engine workload during the power recovery and hover before landing?
I'd be very surprised if any instructor is teaching an auto as part of a normal landing technique? If the area is so noise sensitive that you have to start doing autos to avoid upsetting people, maybe it's time to move the helicopter somewhere else, rather than start adjusting the landing profile in such a big way? By the same logic, an even quieter approach would be to turn the engine off at 2000feet and do an engine off landing
Andy
I'd be very surprised if any instructor is teaching an auto as part of a normal landing technique? If the area is so noise sensitive that you have to start doing autos to avoid upsetting people, maybe it's time to move the helicopter somewhere else, rather than start adjusting the landing profile in such a big way? By the same logic, an even quieter approach would be to turn the engine off at 2000feet and do an engine off landing
Andy
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God you guys are confrontational. - and Canuck guy you are wrong. FM 3-3 does not say land first. When I did my PPL virtually every flight terminated with an autorotation followed by short hover taxi and land. Maybe my instructor was too enthusiastic but I have just carried on what I was taught. I remember vividly being told that an auto approach was quieter, and doing what I have always done, including recovery and a short taxi I find the hottest head is around 320f. There is no need to subject anyone to a running helicopter for any longer than required. I am comfortable with it. My instructor who does my LPCs is comfortable with it. Apparently the insurers are not so no more autos. Its not a problem.