R44 accidents: Is there a pattern?
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift
It's "hear, hear" and is a contraction of "hear him, hear him" originating in parliament in the 18th century. 
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: scotland
Age: 48
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I honestly believe the system works if the people being taught are able to fully appreciate the gravity of what they are actually doing. I know we could all suggest ways to improve it but at the end of the day it has been proven to work. Maybe more emphasis should be put on the human factors and limitations exam and some sort of case studies of common accidents caused by poor judgement etc.
Yes, each pilot is totally different and that is why some guys take longer than others to pass their test, I know of a woman who took 114 hours to get there and she could not care less as she was then much more confident in her abilities. (Her instructor told me she could have gone for her test after about 60 hours but she was much happier to continue training. Good for her!) Drilling into new pilots just how serious it could be, without scaring them sh*tless, would make for better pilots. This is how I was taught and at Scotia they will very happily take you down a peg or two if your attitude starts to outweigh your ability. The limitations of the aircraft should not really come into it. It's the limitations of us that are the problem.
Attitude and aptitude before altitude. (I just came up with that. Rubbish, isn't it?
Yes, each pilot is totally different and that is why some guys take longer than others to pass their test, I know of a woman who took 114 hours to get there and she could not care less as she was then much more confident in her abilities. (Her instructor told me she could have gone for her test after about 60 hours but she was much happier to continue training. Good for her!) Drilling into new pilots just how serious it could be, without scaring them sh*tless, would make for better pilots. This is how I was taught and at Scotia they will very happily take you down a peg or two if your attitude starts to outweigh your ability. The limitations of the aircraft should not really come into it. It's the limitations of us that are the problem.
Attitude and aptitude before altitude. (I just came up with that. Rubbish, isn't it?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear, TET. Or is it Here, here? I never was sure.
It's not the only solution, but it's definitely one of them.
If as much time was spent teaching decision and judgement skills as opposed to engine/tail rotor failure procedural skills, then I'm convinced we'd see a reduction in the CFIT accidents.
CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) is just as pertinent if it is a hangar door on a still clear day as it is into a hill on a foggy day. Only the last couple of seconds in either type of accident doesn't really consitute the "C" bit but the rest of the "FIT" certainly er.... fits.
Look at the stats. How many people have killed themsleves, injured thenselves, or damaged the aircraft due to engine or other equipment failure? I don't consider carb icing or engine failures due running on one mag as engine failure. It is pilot induced.
Compare this to the accidents caused by practising emergencies, and by people crashing into things on landing and take off (ie the flat ground beneath their skids) and flying in weather conditions beyond their capability.
Is the practicing of auto after auto after auto really the best way to spend time spent with an instructor? The engines don't fail these days, if you believe the stats.
And, ask any newly qualified pilot whether they think they could walk away from an undamaged aircraft in the event of a genuine engine failure in a R22. The honest ones will say "no".
So maybe it would be better to get the basic skills sorted, instill the concept that if the aircraft has failed, for whatever reason, then the only relevant thing is to stay alive. Sod the aircraft.
Then spend the time instilling the ability to land in a sensible place safely with the engine still running (should the weather turns nasty), and to get the student or early hours pilot to learn what constitutes a sensible landing site -- be this next to a hangar door, in a tennis court or on the apron of a very large airfield.
The sensible place will vary with the pilot, the time of day, the weather conditions and aircraft type -- but the understanding and interpretation of these factors remain a constant.
What do you think, Hover Motivator?
Big Ls.
It's not the only solution, but it's definitely one of them.
If as much time was spent teaching decision and judgement skills as opposed to engine/tail rotor failure procedural skills, then I'm convinced we'd see a reduction in the CFIT accidents.
CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) is just as pertinent if it is a hangar door on a still clear day as it is into a hill on a foggy day. Only the last couple of seconds in either type of accident doesn't really consitute the "C" bit but the rest of the "FIT" certainly er.... fits.
Look at the stats. How many people have killed themsleves, injured thenselves, or damaged the aircraft due to engine or other equipment failure? I don't consider carb icing or engine failures due running on one mag as engine failure. It is pilot induced.
Compare this to the accidents caused by practising emergencies, and by people crashing into things on landing and take off (ie the flat ground beneath their skids) and flying in weather conditions beyond their capability.
Is the practicing of auto after auto after auto really the best way to spend time spent with an instructor? The engines don't fail these days, if you believe the stats.
And, ask any newly qualified pilot whether they think they could walk away from an undamaged aircraft in the event of a genuine engine failure in a R22. The honest ones will say "no".
So maybe it would be better to get the basic skills sorted, instill the concept that if the aircraft has failed, for whatever reason, then the only relevant thing is to stay alive. Sod the aircraft.
Then spend the time instilling the ability to land in a sensible place safely with the engine still running (should the weather turns nasty), and to get the student or early hours pilot to learn what constitutes a sensible landing site -- be this next to a hangar door, in a tennis court or on the apron of a very large airfield.
The sensible place will vary with the pilot, the time of day, the weather conditions and aircraft type -- but the understanding and interpretation of these factors remain a constant.
What do you think, Hover Motivator?
Big Ls.
HTC
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: where I'm told
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
............ Going back to R44 accidents - has anyone looked at the known accidents, and analysed them as a percentage, of
- Whilst training
- SFH
- Ownership flying
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many people on this forum who go to great lengths to hide their identity but BigLs is not one of them. Anyone with a titter of wit in the rotary world can work out who he is.
Not that it should make any difference to validity of his points.
One could easily make the same accusation of you, flyboystogether.
Cheers
Whirls
Not that it should make any difference to validity of his points.
One could easily make the same accusation of you, flyboystogether.
Cheers
Whirls
Most helicopter students are "cash rich time poor".
One has plenty of time to consider one's choice of professions and steady diet of Ramen Noodles!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R22's and 44's aren't twitchy beasts, in fact they are so ridiculously easy to fly and operate that it is not funny.
Last edited by EN48; 13th Dec 2009 at 13:33. Reason: typos
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So whirleygig,
i am new to the industry, and its great to learn about flying from people who have vast experiance, and i do hope that from others unfortunate situations i and others of lower time in the aircraft we do not become a stastastic, be it from lack of experiance, inabitily or bad training,
So remind me why was the thread started and what has been learnt from it ?
John Black
i am new to the industry, and its great to learn about flying from people who have vast experiance, and i do hope that from others unfortunate situations i and others of lower time in the aircraft we do not become a stastastic, be it from lack of experiance, inabitily or bad training,
So remind me why was the thread started and what has been learnt from it ?
John Black
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboys
"Is the point off his post started by biggles 99 (who still remains name less and and does not have the guts to show his name) to stir or to prove a point ???"
---------------------------
That's a bit harsh, isn't it, Flyboys?
I have no point to prove. I've got the trophies and the medals already, thank you.
I have also clearly stated my view that there is something wrong with the training syllabus if 7 (or more) low houred or unqualified pilots can total the R44 they were sitting in simply when landing or taking off.
And then there's all the CFIT accidents, usually in bad weather.
My vested interest is also stated: that I have several helicopters at the moment and I don't want my insurance premiums to go up and up due to the ridiculous amounts of claims.
And if by "stir" you mean that people such as yourself will read this thread, do a bit of research, learn from other peoples' mistakes and generally engage brain before engage clutch, and stay alive longer as a consequence, then I think that this is something that should be commended rather than sneered at.
Big Ls.
---------------------------
That's a bit harsh, isn't it, Flyboys?
I have no point to prove. I've got the trophies and the medals already, thank you.
I have also clearly stated my view that there is something wrong with the training syllabus if 7 (or more) low houred or unqualified pilots can total the R44 they were sitting in simply when landing or taking off.
And then there's all the CFIT accidents, usually in bad weather.
My vested interest is also stated: that I have several helicopters at the moment and I don't want my insurance premiums to go up and up due to the ridiculous amounts of claims.
And if by "stir" you mean that people such as yourself will read this thread, do a bit of research, learn from other peoples' mistakes and generally engage brain before engage clutch, and stay alive longer as a consequence, then I think that this is something that should be commended rather than sneered at.
Big Ls.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: chester uk
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggles
well said, if there were more people such as yourself that are openly willing to question the system rather than automatically blame the pilot surely that would save lives.
Chester
well said, if there were more people such as yourself that are openly willing to question the system rather than automatically blame the pilot surely that would save lives.
Chester
Chief Bottle Washer
flyboystogether
See post #55.
This thread is general.
Posts by biggles99 in which he was suspiciously keen to damage the reputation of another helicopter school were either edited or removed altogether.
Is the point of his post started by biggles 99 ..... to stir or to prove a point ???
This thread is general.
Posts by biggles99 in which he was suspiciously keen to damage the reputation of another helicopter school were either edited or removed altogether.
