Safest final approach
I can agree with all of that....especially the part where rigid adherence to procedures without full understanding of what they do not tell you, being the key to long life and a rugby football looking Liver.
The most enjoyable teaching I did was in Simulators.....usually the most effective way of doing so was by having a cuppa tea while those being trained watched the in-flight video of their flight which had just ended in tears. Upon their completion of the entertainment one could then begin anew without the obstacle to learning they had arrived with....that being we are the "Bee's Knees" because of who we work for and how perfect we are in every way.
I watched one very good exercise when a fellow instructor had pointed out a small minor flaw in a Bell 212 Emergency Procedure our company in common held to be much better than which was being taught. I had recused myself due to one of the two being trained....as he and I did not swap Christmas Cards after sharing a house in Warri for two years.
The question centered around what to do if one had a Runaway Up on one engine while at a hover.....we suggested the Company Procedure if followed would result in a massive overspeed and subsequent major expenditure for new bits. The procedure said to land immediately and sort out the problem.
The thought there were more than one way that Runaway Up could occur had not been considered. One cause does not respond to throttle reduction....which means the Main Rotor can reach a surprisingly high number if the aircraft is sat on the ground at minimum pitch.
Immediately upon telling my instructor buddy....."We know bloody well what we are doing....your job is to run the Simulator...not criticize our procedures!"
You know what happened next.....Peter B and the two of us in the rear, got a huge laugh out of the results, and someone else got really red ears!
Teach'em to think....and accept one can and should learn from everyone he shares a cockpit with....that is the secret to long life in our profession.
The most enjoyable teaching I did was in Simulators.....usually the most effective way of doing so was by having a cuppa tea while those being trained watched the in-flight video of their flight which had just ended in tears. Upon their completion of the entertainment one could then begin anew without the obstacle to learning they had arrived with....that being we are the "Bee's Knees" because of who we work for and how perfect we are in every way.
I watched one very good exercise when a fellow instructor had pointed out a small minor flaw in a Bell 212 Emergency Procedure our company in common held to be much better than which was being taught. I had recused myself due to one of the two being trained....as he and I did not swap Christmas Cards after sharing a house in Warri for two years.
The question centered around what to do if one had a Runaway Up on one engine while at a hover.....we suggested the Company Procedure if followed would result in a massive overspeed and subsequent major expenditure for new bits. The procedure said to land immediately and sort out the problem.
The thought there were more than one way that Runaway Up could occur had not been considered. One cause does not respond to throttle reduction....which means the Main Rotor can reach a surprisingly high number if the aircraft is sat on the ground at minimum pitch.
Immediately upon telling my instructor buddy....."We know bloody well what we are doing....your job is to run the Simulator...not criticize our procedures!"
You know what happened next.....Peter B and the two of us in the rear, got a huge laugh out of the results, and someone else got really red ears!
Teach'em to think....and accept one can and should learn from everyone he shares a cockpit with....that is the secret to long life in our profession.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: middle east
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40 till 10
QS - Kudo's 2 u for posting and taking on conflicting instructors/techniques. There's been some good gen here that hopefully you can put to good use.
One useful rule of thumb, from an ex-airforce instructor, given to me early in my training was simply this - 40 kts till 10 feet will keep you on the right side of the curve on most days. That one rule has stood me in good stead from R22s thru to 412s.
It's a good ROT which works well for 'normal' approaches in most situations. Try it out sometime, starting the appr from a normal stabilised gate (e.g. 60kts @ 500'). Since it's quite a 'broad' ROT it allows the student to relax a little and get his head up, eyes outside and not fixate on the ASI/ALT combos.
One of the most common mistakes we find with newbies is they often end up in a high hover (OGE) 30-40 feet short of the landing spot, which is a bad place for them to be.
This rule of thumb can sometimes help by simplifying the approach process. Sometimes it helps to uncomplicate things!
Good luck!
One useful rule of thumb, from an ex-airforce instructor, given to me early in my training was simply this - 40 kts till 10 feet will keep you on the right side of the curve on most days. That one rule has stood me in good stead from R22s thru to 412s.
It's a good ROT which works well for 'normal' approaches in most situations. Try it out sometime, starting the appr from a normal stabilised gate (e.g. 60kts @ 500'). Since it's quite a 'broad' ROT it allows the student to relax a little and get his head up, eyes outside and not fixate on the ASI/ALT combos.
One of the most common mistakes we find with newbies is they often end up in a high hover (OGE) 30-40 feet short of the landing spot, which is a bad place for them to be.
This rule of thumb can sometimes help by simplifying the approach process. Sometimes it helps to uncomplicate things!
Good luck!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Homer, Alaska
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I mostly land off airport, 40 knots at 10 feet would not meet the criteria of a stabilized approach in the mountain environment, and seem to be oriented more towards an emergency procedure than a normal landing.
How about have the disk loaded early on the approach, and before decelerating thru translational verify sufficient power reserve to be able to continue the approach to your landing spot or abort and go somewhere else. This also minimizes yaw at the bottom due to changes in power, allows you to better feel the wind and changes in direction and velocity by observing crab and closure rate, and takes away any surprise as to what power you will have available at the bottom.
How about have the disk loaded early on the approach, and before decelerating thru translational verify sufficient power reserve to be able to continue the approach to your landing spot or abort and go somewhere else. This also minimizes yaw at the bottom due to changes in power, allows you to better feel the wind and changes in direction and velocity by observing crab and closure rate, and takes away any surprise as to what power you will have available at the bottom.
People..... we're talking about a 10 hour student, who is learning the basics of a standard approach in a standard circuit at an airfield.... Not a 100 hour plus student learning tight confined area landings and mountain approaches. Hell, anybody got any advice on a rig approach for the poor chap.... no wait.... here it is... http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/366...-approach.html this might help...
Even though there is a lot of useful information that has been given - for training further down the line.... it's a 10 hour student...
lets not confuse him...!
Even though there is a lot of useful information that has been given - for training further down the line.... it's a 10 hour student...
lets not confuse him...!
Kevin
Forget about vortex ring, you will not get into it when making even a crap approach into wind. The dead mans curve again dont worry about it, the chances of the engine failing while in it are so remote you are more likely to be run over by the no87 bus going down Oxford street
Forget about vortex ring, you will not get into it when making even a crap approach into wind. The dead mans curve again dont worry about it, the chances of the engine failing while in it are so remote you are more likely to be run over by the no87 bus going down Oxford street
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Wales
Age: 48
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically.... it's the reverse of what you do for the take off and climb.
Flyting
Are you stark raving mad!!! Don't be teaching the guy this.
The H/V curve is for take off and NOT landing.
Flyting
Are you stark raving mad!!! Don't be teaching the guy this.
The H/V curve is for take off and NOT landing.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The H/V curve is for take off and NOT landing.
It would also apply for example, when ever the aircraft is within the shaded areas, right? which can include low flying (for example hovering at 150 feet). You would not, for example approach vertically from 500 feet with zero airspeed, because if you did, you would be within the shaded areas. Therefore the shaded areas of the H/V curve are to be avoided, including whilst landing.
Last edited by chopjock; 7th Feb 2010 at 16:46.
Back to the original post - neither technique is wrong or unsafe just subtly different.
The best argument for a constant angle approach is that it requires the student to demonstrate the ability to fly glideslope with lever ie keep the landing point in the same position in the windscreen - this has huge benefits when coming to night/mountain/confined area techniques. He then just controls rate of closure with cyclic.
The other approach manintaining speed is more flexible and probably used more in the real world for an approach to most HLS when power isn't a problem.
I would make sure a student can fly a constant angle approach properly first and then introduce the gate approach/quickstop technique or whatever else you want to call it.
If you approach into wind you have to grossly mishandle an aircraft to get into even incipient VRS so there is no need to be paranoid about it.
The best argument for a constant angle approach is that it requires the student to demonstrate the ability to fly glideslope with lever ie keep the landing point in the same position in the windscreen - this has huge benefits when coming to night/mountain/confined area techniques. He then just controls rate of closure with cyclic.
The other approach manintaining speed is more flexible and probably used more in the real world for an approach to most HLS when power isn't a problem.
I would make sure a student can fly a constant angle approach properly first and then introduce the gate approach/quickstop technique or whatever else you want to call it.
If you approach into wind you have to grossly mishandle an aircraft to get into even incipient VRS so there is no need to be paranoid about it.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,094
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were taught to pick the furthest of four white circular markers on the airfield and keep it in the same position, relative to the widscreen, through out the approach. Confined area and minimum power approaches came later in the course.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The both techniques for ploughing in a robbie have their good points and not so great ones.
The 60kts at 100ft and then flare to come to the hover is an old technique, that I know of used in the Uk for a while, Keeps you out of the avoid curve, but when training the students and the subsequent solo's, it was found alot more incidents with stinger strikes, very close calls and instructor heart failure.
The now maintaining a constant rate of closure, constant angle of approach.
Allowing the speed to slowly wash off when starting an approach, the student has an improved judgement to not to stack it when coming through 100ft, yet you do get some interesting students that will not understand the concepts and allow the speed to decrease to a certain point on the approach to an unsafe level.
None is right, none is wrong. Its your judgement of the students ability for him to judge closure rate and then make a decision.
fluffy
The 60kts at 100ft and then flare to come to the hover is an old technique, that I know of used in the Uk for a while, Keeps you out of the avoid curve, but when training the students and the subsequent solo's, it was found alot more incidents with stinger strikes, very close calls and instructor heart failure.
The now maintaining a constant rate of closure, constant angle of approach.
Allowing the speed to slowly wash off when starting an approach, the student has an improved judgement to not to stack it when coming through 100ft, yet you do get some interesting students that will not understand the concepts and allow the speed to decrease to a certain point on the approach to an unsafe level.
None is right, none is wrong. Its your judgement of the students ability for him to judge closure rate and then make a decision.
fluffy
Fluffy - what you describe is exactly the result of a student not controlling glidepath with collective - they end up getting steep and washing off the speed to try and keep visual with the landing point - then with no more speed to wash off they resort to dumping the lever to recover the required sight picture.
BTW there is no unsafe low speed on approach as long as you have the power to hover OGE - you can make a vertical descent if you want to. As someone posted earlier - a good marker of student ability is that they can make a safe, steep approach into an LS.
BTW there is no unsafe low speed on approach as long as you have the power to hover OGE - you can make a vertical descent if you want to. As someone posted earlier - a good marker of student ability is that they can make a safe, steep approach into an LS.
Crab - interesting that CFS have moved to a constant speed approach for ccts on their course, but the DHFS continue with the speed reducing version that we have always used for basic transitions.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: middle east
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H-V diagram
QS, Just a comment on the H/V diagram (avoid curve);
It's a bit worrying that some on this thread have said that the H/V diagram applies to the take off phase only. Hmmmm.....
To quote from Bell training: "The height-velocity diagram defines the conditions from which a safe landing can be made on a smooth, level, firm surface following an engine failure"
The avoid curve deals with energy - kinetic (speed) & potential (height), required to regain rrpm following it's enevitable decay after an engine failure and the unsuspecting pilots' time to react. I've haven't seen or heard off an avoid curve predicated for the take off phase only (please someone advise if these charts exist on other types).
Those kind & brave test pilots went up and tested various combinations of height and airspeed from which they could safely pull off an auto & walk away. These were done from various flight regimes i.e. straight & level, climbing, descending etc.
All the H-V diagram is telling you is that if you fly in the shaded area, regardless of what phase of flight it is (and where the collective is sitting), you cannot be assured of pulling off a successful auto (EOL).
So, be aware that flying a constant angle approach could well put you inside the avoid (shaded) area with a combination of height & airspeed that falls in the grey e.g. 20kts @ 40 feet with an armful of collective/pitch as you approach the OGE hover condition, the FM says your rrpm will decay real quick in this condition and your landing will not be assured.
Cheers
J
It's a bit worrying that some on this thread have said that the H/V diagram applies to the take off phase only. Hmmmm.....
To quote from Bell training: "The height-velocity diagram defines the conditions from which a safe landing can be made on a smooth, level, firm surface following an engine failure"
The avoid curve deals with energy - kinetic (speed) & potential (height), required to regain rrpm following it's enevitable decay after an engine failure and the unsuspecting pilots' time to react. I've haven't seen or heard off an avoid curve predicated for the take off phase only (please someone advise if these charts exist on other types).
Those kind & brave test pilots went up and tested various combinations of height and airspeed from which they could safely pull off an auto & walk away. These were done from various flight regimes i.e. straight & level, climbing, descending etc.
All the H-V diagram is telling you is that if you fly in the shaded area, regardless of what phase of flight it is (and where the collective is sitting), you cannot be assured of pulling off a successful auto (EOL).
So, be aware that flying a constant angle approach could well put you inside the avoid (shaded) area with a combination of height & airspeed that falls in the grey e.g. 20kts @ 40 feet with an armful of collective/pitch as you approach the OGE hover condition, the FM says your rrpm will decay real quick in this condition and your landing will not be assured.
Cheers
J
Last edited by jetA1pilot; 8th Feb 2010 at 08:51. Reason: Typo