Are engine failures always recoverable in helicopters?
Um... lifting...
Surely the correct answer is: "Yes, very. Only the finest and most talented have any hope of being able to cope with the superhuman co-ordination and intense mental battering that flying a helicopter requires".
That's what I say anyway....
I'm often asked by non-pilots if it's "harder to fly a helicopter". My answer is: "not for me".
That's what I say anyway....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn, et al:
I have no doubt that metal will be bent if the engine quits at 100', but I don't believe that it's certain death. I've done a number of practice autos from ~100', and while it's not the easiest maneuver, it's certainly not a guarantee of dying on the spot. A reasonably proficient pilot should be able to walk away from the scene, or at least be transported to a hospital for treatment.
As for the original question, the answer is obviously "no". Engine failures in automobiles are not always recoverable, nevermind aircraft of any type. There are few certainties in life, and living through any event is not one of them. If events conspire to occur in certain ways, nothing we can do will prevent someone dying, but that isn't often the case, and while engine failures aren't always recoverable, they generally are, at least to the extent that nobody dies.
I have no doubt that metal will be bent if the engine quits at 100', but I don't believe that it's certain death. I've done a number of practice autos from ~100', and while it's not the easiest maneuver, it's certainly not a guarantee of dying on the spot. A reasonably proficient pilot should be able to walk away from the scene, or at least be transported to a hospital for treatment.
As for the original question, the answer is obviously "no". Engine failures in automobiles are not always recoverable, nevermind aircraft of any type. There are few certainties in life, and living through any event is not one of them. If events conspire to occur in certain ways, nothing we can do will prevent someone dying, but that isn't often the case, and while engine failures aren't always recoverable, they generally are, at least to the extent that nobody dies.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Gomer:
With all due respect - you're setting yourself up for a very hard fall if you think you'll be able to get away injury to yourself if you have a real engine failure in a 100' hover.
Practicing is fine to develop technique and experience, but the real engine failure doesn't give you any advance warning, and the intervention time between figuring out it's an engine failure and doing the necessary thing means you will be plummeting to the ground with reducing rotor RPM and no chance to stop the rate of descent, or get any forward speed.
Try an engine failure in the hover at say 5' AGL, and do not lower the collective when you roll the throttle off. You may only raise the collective. If you're happy with that, try it at increasing heights (do this at maximum weight, by the way). If you get higher than about 8' AGL before you chicken out, I'd be surprised.
If you can show me a real engine failure (in a single engine helicopter) from such a condition where the pilot walked away and there was no damage to the aircraft, I'd a) be incredibly surprised and b) buy the pilot at least one beer/drink of choice.
With all due respect - you're setting yourself up for a very hard fall if you think you'll be able to get away injury to yourself if you have a real engine failure in a 100' hover.
Practicing is fine to develop technique and experience, but the real engine failure doesn't give you any advance warning, and the intervention time between figuring out it's an engine failure and doing the necessary thing means you will be plummeting to the ground with reducing rotor RPM and no chance to stop the rate of descent, or get any forward speed.
Try an engine failure in the hover at say 5' AGL, and do not lower the collective when you roll the throttle off. You may only raise the collective. If you're happy with that, try it at increasing heights (do this at maximum weight, by the way). If you get higher than about 8' AGL before you chicken out, I'd be surprised.
If you can show me a real engine failure (in a single engine helicopter) from such a condition where the pilot walked away and there was no damage to the aircraft, I'd a) be incredibly surprised and b) buy the pilot at least one beer/drink of choice.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that 100' hover flight position is an indicator of lack of pilot acumen for sure
my apols, I should have qualified that, with - when there is no need to especially in a lightie, like an R22 when mustering.
One of the things I spend a lot of time with on C & T is "impressing" those who don't think about that with a heap of hover autos from 300'. Particularly impressive in an R22.
Good Grief, you're back!!
As far as, "those types of jobs", well I have only done about 90 or 100 sling endorsements, short, long, pick yer nose, drop a mag on vertical out, because dumkompf didn't check his, all that. Does that answer your statement.
you're as guilty as me gomer, no qualification. With or without airspeed? heavy or light inertia? Etc.
The real recip usually does give a little warning,
1. fuel starvation, one cough, then silence,
2. magneto drive failure, one cough, then silence. usually more than enough time to galvinise the reactionary mode into top gear well before the sinking bit occurs. Probably all a lot more sudden than a turbine winddown.
3. sinking instantly only occurs with a free wheel failure, believe me, at the same time of course as a god awful horrendous din out the back. more than enough to the scare the livin' daylights out of any decent self respectin' chookhouse for a hundred miles around.
Guess you haven't done those certain type of jobs then...
One of the things I spend a lot of time with on C & T is "impressing" those who don't think about that with a heap of hover autos from 300'. Particularly impressive in an R22.
Good Grief, you're back!!
As far as, "those types of jobs", well I have only done about 90 or 100 sling endorsements, short, long, pick yer nose, drop a mag on vertical out, because dumkompf didn't check his, all that. Does that answer your statement.
I've done a number of practice autos from ~100',
The real recip usually does give a little warning,
1. fuel starvation, one cough, then silence,
2. magneto drive failure, one cough, then silence. usually more than enough time to galvinise the reactionary mode into top gear well before the sinking bit occurs. Probably all a lot more sudden than a turbine winddown.
3. sinking instantly only occurs with a free wheel failure, believe me, at the same time of course as a god awful horrendous din out the back. more than enough to the scare the livin' daylights out of any decent self respectin' chookhouse for a hundred miles around.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a note to say that I am indeed reading the replies to my original question. It's interesting to see the discussion that has arisen from it; apparently there isn't a real consensus on whether engine failures are universally recoverable or not.
I realize that "always" is a strong word. What I was thinking of was a comparison with fixed-wing aircraft. If you are flying in a fixed-wing aircraft in normal flight (not stalled, and in level flight or a coordinated standard turn, gentle climb or descent, etc.), and the terrain below you is completely flat (think salt flats), it's hard to see how an engine failure could not be recoverable. In every case, you'd be able to glide down to a landing, without hurting yourself or the airplane.
I was wondering if this can also be said of engine failures in a helicopter. You're flying along, or hovering, or are otherwise in some normal regime of flight, and the engine fails completely (or all engines, if you have more than one). Is it always possible to land safely on the salt flat? The original Web page I had read indicated that in certain types of otherwise normal flight, an engine failure means that the aircraft and/or its pilot will be injured or killed. The example given was a failure at 90 feet AGL, which supposedly spells disaster (it was implied that this was from a hovering position at that altitude, rather than forward flight, but I'm not sure).
It sounds like there's a lot of disagreement about whether or not recovery is always possible, and it sounds like it depends a lot on the specific aircraft. I've been looking at YouTube videos of both successful autorotations and unsuccessful ones. The rate of descent is quite harrowing, but apparently that's normal. I think I understand the theory: collective down so that the wind as you descend speeds the rotor up instead of slowing it down, then a flare that reverses the collective so that it briefly produces lift to soften the landing (I hope that's right—probably a vast oversimplification). It looks way, way harder than just gliding onto the ground in an airplane.
In any case, the discussion is interesting.
I realize that "always" is a strong word. What I was thinking of was a comparison with fixed-wing aircraft. If you are flying in a fixed-wing aircraft in normal flight (not stalled, and in level flight or a coordinated standard turn, gentle climb or descent, etc.), and the terrain below you is completely flat (think salt flats), it's hard to see how an engine failure could not be recoverable. In every case, you'd be able to glide down to a landing, without hurting yourself or the airplane.
I was wondering if this can also be said of engine failures in a helicopter. You're flying along, or hovering, or are otherwise in some normal regime of flight, and the engine fails completely (or all engines, if you have more than one). Is it always possible to land safely on the salt flat? The original Web page I had read indicated that in certain types of otherwise normal flight, an engine failure means that the aircraft and/or its pilot will be injured or killed. The example given was a failure at 90 feet AGL, which supposedly spells disaster (it was implied that this was from a hovering position at that altitude, rather than forward flight, but I'm not sure).
It sounds like there's a lot of disagreement about whether or not recovery is always possible, and it sounds like it depends a lot on the specific aircraft. I've been looking at YouTube videos of both successful autorotations and unsuccessful ones. The rate of descent is quite harrowing, but apparently that's normal. I think I understand the theory: collective down so that the wind as you descend speeds the rotor up instead of slowing it down, then a flare that reverses the collective so that it briefly produces lift to soften the landing (I hope that's right—probably a vast oversimplification). It looks way, way harder than just gliding onto the ground in an airplane.
In any case, the discussion is interesting.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I was lucky, maybe a little skill boosted by adrenalin, but I walked away from a high hover engine failure with no damage to man nor machine, but then it was pilot friendly machine!
Getting on for 40 years ago carrying out a gunnery shoot in my "trusty" Bell 47G3B1, hovering along a tree line between 50 - 100 feet agl when the donk stopped. Yaw, with a little help from the pedal turned away from the trees, lever down, nose down , nose up ,lever up, on the ground. My heart ticking louder than the cooling turbo charger.
Getting on for 40 years ago carrying out a gunnery shoot in my "trusty" Bell 47G3B1, hovering along a tree line between 50 - 100 feet agl when the donk stopped. Yaw, with a little help from the pedal turned away from the trees, lever down, nose down , nose up ,lever up, on the ground. My heart ticking louder than the cooling turbo charger.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're talking about an engine failure in cruise flight, I'll take a helicopter every time. You don't need hundreds of feet of ground run for the landing, you can put it down in any open area with little or no ground run. IMO an engine failure in a helicopter is orders of magnitude safer than in a fixed-wing, and much more likely to result in no injuries. Anything is possible, of course, and you can put the aircraft into situations that are unrecoverable in the event of engine failure, just as you can put an automobile into situations that are unrecoverable in the event of engine failure. But in the general case of cruise flight, regardless of altitude, a helicopter is far more likely to be able to do a safe landing, regardless of what is under it, because of the far lower speed necessary. The rate of descent is not harrowing. It is somewhat higher than most fixed-wing, but it's completely controllable, and the touchdown rate of descent is close to nil.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well look this. Never let an instructor tell you what to do.In this case the instructor had an argument with the owner regarding throttle settings. You can reach your own conclusions.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...SA%2008-08.pdf
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...SA%2008-08.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: N42° 20' 43" W71° 04' 45"
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
max performance takeoff (say 40 feet), which is standard practice at Palo Alto due to obstructions and the airport layout
Sorry, off topic..
I have to ask.. really? I don't know the air/heli port at Palo Alto - but isn't there some way of doing a normal t/o, even if it is down the active r/w?
n5296s - well, if you are doing it for pleasure and you now recognise the dangers of a max performance take-off - I presume you will always request departure and arrival from the runway/taxiway from now on.
An engine is most likely to quit when you ask the most of it during a rapid acceleration.
An engine is most likely to quit when you ask the most of it during a rapid acceleration.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An engine is most likely to quit when you ask the most of it during a rapid acceleration.
It should be noted that ALL engine failures present the pilot with a situation that is screwupable! It's more certain than the OP's premise.
CG
CG
n5296s
Well, one of us has been flying helicopters for 27 years and 7000 hours and has seen most (not all) of the mistakes that can be made in a helicopter (of those 27 years, 20 have been as a QHI). As a Flight Safety Officer at various levels it has also been my job to point out where some of the pitfalls lie when operating helicopters. If all that makes me pompous and patronising but helps prevent those who think they know it all from killing themselves then I am pretty content with that.
You know that a max performance take-off puts you at more risk than a normal transition yet you choose to depart from a confined site when an airfield is available - why? To save time? Because it is easier and quicker? You are operating in a no-threat environment for pleasure but you choose the risky option over the safe one - I'll tell you what kills pilots the quickest - arrogance.
Flysafe
And for myself, I presume that you are a patronising and pompous fool. Of course, in the nature of presumptions, either or both of us could be wrong, and in fact one of us definitely is.
You know that a max performance take-off puts you at more risk than a normal transition yet you choose to depart from a confined site when an airfield is available - why? To save time? Because it is easier and quicker? You are operating in a no-threat environment for pleasure but you choose the risky option over the safe one - I'll tell you what kills pilots the quickest - arrogance.
Flysafe
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
I was initially trained by the US Army, and they did sort of a max performance takeoff as normal.
Then, at USAF transition training, the takeoff was made very close to the ground, getting through translational lift ASAP, and then climbing away. I believe it is much safer the USAF way, and not sure why the Army training was different.
cliff
NBO
PS-If U R cruising at 500' in a helo, and have an engine failure, with good landing places below you, it is no problem.
Recently had a very experienced EMS pilot in KGRB have a tailrotor failure on an avionics test flight, and he did not make it. He avoided killing anyone on the ground, so that was a good thing.
I was initially trained by the US Army, and they did sort of a max performance takeoff as normal.
Then, at USAF transition training, the takeoff was made very close to the ground, getting through translational lift ASAP, and then climbing away. I believe it is much safer the USAF way, and not sure why the Army training was different.
cliff
NBO
PS-If U R cruising at 500' in a helo, and have an engine failure, with good landing places below you, it is no problem.
Recently had a very experienced EMS pilot in KGRB have a tailrotor failure on an avionics test flight, and he did not make it. He avoided killing anyone on the ground, so that was a good thing.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: N42° 20' 43" W71° 04' 45"
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why? To save time? Because it is easier and quicker? You are operating in a no-threat environment for pleasure but you choose the risky option over the safe one
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Homer, Alaska
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When watching helicopters depart, I never ceased to be amazed by the number of vertical, down wind or otherwise cowboy departures, when an into the wind, flat disk departure is available.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Homer, Alaska
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect, it is often the "most experienced" pilots that are making the cowboy departures. Try one of these doing recurrent at the Bell Training Academy or at Canadian Helicopters, when a flat disk departure is available, and you will get an earful. Often, you can slightly change something, accommodate other aircraft, and still make a safer departure.
n5296s - I'll take that as a sort of apology for the 'patronising pompous fool' comment - I presumed you would look at how you operate at Palo Alto in light of some of the informed comments on this thread regarding engine failures - I guess I was wrong.
Your dismissal of exposure time is a form of denial - I don't know how high you go on your towering, max-performance transition but I would guess at least 40' to clear the obstacles and you will be in the avoid curve (H-V curve) from the point you pass about 10' in the climb until you have probably 50' and 40 kts (providing you are then over a clear area with no further obstructions) - a bit more than <2seconds per flight - AND you have to do the reverse on the way back in!
I'm sure the NTSB would understand how your instructor, the operation he works for and the airport all feel that increasing the risk to your pink body is more acceptable than upsetting the FW owners; yes downwash can make the flaps and rudders bang about but you can fit control locks, tie the aircraft down or just park them slightly further away. When was the last time all the users of Palo Alto had a flight safety meeting to discuss operating procedures and safety issues?
Flying in the military tends to breed an element of over-confidence in ones own ability - trust me I know - and spending your formative flying years in a high threat environment colours your judgement regarding risk. Your 10k+ vet isn't flying in a war zone any more - as I'm sure he knows - and should therefore be prepared to explain the risks involved and talk you through the consequenses of an engine failure at 40' and 10 kts in a confined area. If he dismisses your concerns out of hand then you have got the wrong instructor.
Just because the EMS aircraft (is it a single or a twin) does it doesn't make it right either - the economic pressures on EMS operations in the US make them take a lot of risks that are unwarranted - see the many threads on pprune about it or ask Sasless.
The bottom line is that just because you can do it in a helicopter doesn't mean you should and having lots of hours doesn't make you good - just lucky
Your dismissal of exposure time is a form of denial - I don't know how high you go on your towering, max-performance transition but I would guess at least 40' to clear the obstacles and you will be in the avoid curve (H-V curve) from the point you pass about 10' in the climb until you have probably 50' and 40 kts (providing you are then over a clear area with no further obstructions) - a bit more than <2seconds per flight - AND you have to do the reverse on the way back in!
I'm sure the NTSB would understand how your instructor, the operation he works for and the airport all feel that increasing the risk to your pink body is more acceptable than upsetting the FW owners; yes downwash can make the flaps and rudders bang about but you can fit control locks, tie the aircraft down or just park them slightly further away. When was the last time all the users of Palo Alto had a flight safety meeting to discuss operating procedures and safety issues?
Flying in the military tends to breed an element of over-confidence in ones own ability - trust me I know - and spending your formative flying years in a high threat environment colours your judgement regarding risk. Your 10k+ vet isn't flying in a war zone any more - as I'm sure he knows - and should therefore be prepared to explain the risks involved and talk you through the consequenses of an engine failure at 40' and 10 kts in a confined area. If he dismisses your concerns out of hand then you have got the wrong instructor.
Just because the EMS aircraft (is it a single or a twin) does it doesn't make it right either - the economic pressures on EMS operations in the US make them take a lot of risks that are unwarranted - see the many threads on pprune about it or ask Sasless.
The bottom line is that just because you can do it in a helicopter doesn't mean you should and having lots of hours doesn't make you good - just lucky