Mid-Summer Madness
.
No reference to 'unsafe' landing locations - however the number of locations (different locations for typically one insertion and extraction each) precluded the feasible forward deployment of ground crews who might otherwise have been used to receive such landings. You would in effect double the contracted flying hours.
Re: shutting down .. what, five times an hour?
No reference to 'unsafe' landing locations - however the number of locations (different locations for typically one insertion and extraction each) precluded the feasible forward deployment of ground crews who might otherwise have been used to receive such landings. You would in effect double the contracted flying hours.
Re: shutting down .. what, five times an hour?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Savoia
You probably saw David Boyce's photograph in post 200 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...nna-afc-6.html.
I met your Godfather in Cape Town in February 2009 at this event (See post 44) organised by the Guild of Air Pilots, of which he has been a member for almost 50 years. A splendid character! There are some pictures of him here and here. He had fallen and broken his ankle earlier in the day, but he didn't allow that to prevent him attending! He was about 88 at the time - I hope he's still going strong.
Tudor Owen
FL
You probably saw David Boyce's photograph in post 200 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...nna-afc-6.html.
I met your Godfather in Cape Town in February 2009 at this event (See post 44) organised by the Guild of Air Pilots, of which he has been a member for almost 50 years. A splendid character! There are some pictures of him here and here. He had fallen and broken his ankle earlier in the day, but he didn't allow that to prevent him attending! He was about 88 at the time - I hope he's still going strong.
Tudor Owen
FL
.
Fantastic!
What a great thread and a wonderful tribute to one of Britain's aviation pioneers. I have for many years admired the photos taken of Henshaw with Churchill.
Fantastic!
What a great thread and a wonderful tribute to one of Britain's aviation pioneers. I have for many years admired the photos taken of Henshaw with Churchill.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point.
Back to the thread .....
SS
The explanation sometimes given by pilots who operate in remote locations in some parts of the world is that the risk of not shutting down has to be balanced against the risk of not being able to re-start.
======
EN48
As you are not a professional pilot, it's unlikely that you will.
Back to the thread .....
SS
I'm confused as to how a location can be safe enough to leave the ac rotors running but not safe enough to close down
======
EN48
I can imagine that in a few circumstances, shutting down may not be a good idea, but I have yet to encounter these circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are acceptable reasons for a pilot to leave a machine at ground idle, as has been posted - in the bush, at high altitude, etc. - where it is considered to be less of a risk than shutting down and take a chance on re-starting, or safer to board or discharge passengers/freight, etc.
However, the OP tells us that this occurred at an airfield in the UK. Somewhere where it is illegal under the ANO to leave a helicopter to fend for itself under power - and I would have thought totally un-necessary given that there ought to be ground-staff to operate fuel pumps, etc.
I knew when I saw the original post that there would be the inevitable 'it's wrong - no, it's right' argument about a pilot leaving the helicopter with the rotors under power, or immediately after shutdown - but in this instance I think it was totally wrong, and un-acceptable at an airfield.
As for the foot-out-of-the-door and the chop-throttle-and-depart debate, it's an attitude thing. Some pilots display and practice a more professional attitude than others.
I know which I prefer in my pilots.
However, the OP tells us that this occurred at an airfield in the UK. Somewhere where it is illegal under the ANO to leave a helicopter to fend for itself under power - and I would have thought totally un-necessary given that there ought to be ground-staff to operate fuel pumps, etc.
I knew when I saw the original post that there would be the inevitable 'it's wrong - no, it's right' argument about a pilot leaving the helicopter with the rotors under power, or immediately after shutdown - but in this instance I think it was totally wrong, and un-acceptable at an airfield.
As for the foot-out-of-the-door and the chop-throttle-and-depart debate, it's an attitude thing. Some pilots display and practice a more professional attitude than others.
I know which I prefer in my pilots.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The explanation sometimes given by pilots who operate in remote locations in some parts of the world is that the risk of not shutting down has to be balanced against the risk of not being able to re-start.
Any changes to company SOP's to reflect this, after experiencing a trend that is?
Out of interest and cantbearsedtogoogleit-itis, are there many types in the civil world with clutches that could at least get rid of the rotor danger aspect?
AOPA Hover Power » Blog Archive » Hot or cold
The OP had a (slightly emotive) reference to foot out of the door & exiting with the blades winding down at speed. Anyone who's operated a JetBox in high temps without a gas strut to open the door soon learns to wedge their right foot in the door frame to get a bit of cooling during the 2 minute engine off procedure: nothing wrong with that whatsoever, assuming the pilot remained strapped in and at the controls! After a 2 minute idle, I find it difficult to believe the
Whenever the subject of hot refuels and/or leaving the controls whilst the helicopter is running comes up on Rotorheads there is always a huge discussion, usually following the same split. Those who operate where it is a normal, accepted but controlled procedure, and those who can't see past the operation they are in where fluffy kittens will die by the hundreds if anyone should even contemplate such a heinous crime
CASA have mandated the parameters for hot refuelling and for leaving the controls of a helicopter whilst running, and they have served me (and others) well over the years. ISTR that the North Sea also allowed hot refuelling back when Pontius was a pilot, has that changed and if so, why?
There are parts of helicopter operations that need and benefit from lateral thinking. Just because the CAA prohibits something doesn't necessarily mean that it is intrinsically wrong or unsafe
the rotors continued to run down at high speed.
Whenever the subject of hot refuels and/or leaving the controls whilst the helicopter is running comes up on Rotorheads there is always a huge discussion, usually following the same split. Those who operate where it is a normal, accepted but controlled procedure, and those who can't see past the operation they are in where fluffy kittens will die by the hundreds if anyone should even contemplate such a heinous crime
CASA have mandated the parameters for hot refuelling and for leaving the controls of a helicopter whilst running, and they have served me (and others) well over the years. ISTR that the North Sea also allowed hot refuelling back when Pontius was a pilot, has that changed and if so, why?
There are parts of helicopter operations that need and benefit from lateral thinking. Just because the CAA prohibits something doesn't necessarily mean that it is intrinsically wrong or unsafe
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you are not a professional pilot, it's unlikely that you will.
In any event, the incident that started this thread had nothing to do with third world jungles, but a routine refueling at UK airport. (AFAIK, the UK isnt yet considered third world by most.) This is something I do every time I fly and IMHO see little need under these circumstances to accept the additional risk of hot refueling or leaving the acft with the rotors turning.
As a refugee from 40 years in the FW world, I am still surprised at the relatively "wild west" mindset that is very much in evidence in the RW world. (I dont have any problem with making ESSENTIAL allowances for unusual ops or difficult circumstances provided an appropriate level of judgment/risk management is applied.)
Last edited by EN48; 9th Jul 2011 at 23:25.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,609
Received 467 Likes
on
247 Posts
John, rotors turning refuelling is done at many places in UK; e.g. London Heliport and Sywell, Blackbushe etc. Also it is completely commonplace in the military. All have been risk assessed and procedures are in place to minimise those risks.
However, the procedure isn't done by the (alone) pilot with the engine running and no-one manning the controls simply to save on engine cycles. Seems to me that the holes in the cheese are being unnecessarily put in close alignment in that instance.
If rotors running refuelling is required by a company they can apply for an exemption/permission to disregard the terms of the Air Navigation Order. However, terms and conditions will be attached. I know that the above situation wouldn't be allowed by such a permission.
My aircraft has cycle counts on the undercarriage, as well as on the engines. Maybe it would be acceptable to hover-jump passengers to save unnecessary cycles; after all, we used to do that in the military all the time.
However, the procedure isn't done by the (alone) pilot with the engine running and no-one manning the controls simply to save on engine cycles. Seems to me that the holes in the cheese are being unnecessarily put in close alignment in that instance.
If rotors running refuelling is required by a company they can apply for an exemption/permission to disregard the terms of the Air Navigation Order. However, terms and conditions will be attached. I know that the above situation wouldn't be allowed by such a permission.
My aircraft has cycle counts on the undercarriage, as well as on the engines. Maybe it would be acceptable to hover-jump passengers to save unnecessary cycles; after all, we used to do that in the military all the time.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... in high temps
CASA have mandated the parameters for hot refuelling and for leaving the controls of a helicopter whilst running
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
100% agree with STq's last post.
Rotors running refuels have a time and a place, we do them in Police Ops if the situation dictates. Even then, we have the pilot at the controls, one man at the nozzle and the other at the pump. Yes we have the manpower to do it and could probably do with another to oversee the whole operation. Even in the rare times it is done it is by no means taken lightly.
Sometimes a particular job needs this to happen and when it does it would probably only be when another aircraft cannot give cover when the first ac needs to get away for fuel. So expect this to happen more often once NPAS kick in!
What amazes me, getting back to the 'leaving the ac controls unmanned' discussion, is that the same people that tell us we don't need to fly around with 2 engines because reliability is so good, are the same people that tell us they can't shut down because they might not be able to start up again !
Rotors running refuels have a time and a place, we do them in Police Ops if the situation dictates. Even then, we have the pilot at the controls, one man at the nozzle and the other at the pump. Yes we have the manpower to do it and could probably do with another to oversee the whole operation. Even in the rare times it is done it is by no means taken lightly.
Sometimes a particular job needs this to happen and when it does it would probably only be when another aircraft cannot give cover when the first ac needs to get away for fuel. So expect this to happen more often once NPAS kick in!
What amazes me, getting back to the 'leaving the ac controls unmanned' discussion, is that the same people that tell us we don't need to fly around with 2 engines because reliability is so good, are the same people that tell us they can't shut down because they might not be able to start up again !
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What amazes me, getting back to the 'leaving the ac controls unmanned' discussion, is that the same people that tell us we don't need to fly around with 2 engines because reliability is so good, are the same people that tell us they can't shut down because they might not be able to start up again !
FL
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I doubt it if there any stats for failed starts but my impression, no more, is that they are more common than failures in flight.
If when selecting 'RUN' the Gazelle didn't start, all we had to do was hit the starter gennie with a hammer like handy thing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west yorkshire
Age: 52
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Flaxon Flyer in reference to your comment “RR refuel is not an approved SOP for our unit". Why was your ship hot fuelled this afternoon, I stand corrected you’re the lazy arse pump hogger not jack jack who’s just a snake in the grass tell tail.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EN48
Are you referring to professional helicopter pilots or private pilots, or both?
It's a bold assertion from a private pilot who has been flying helicopters for only 4 years.
It's also very different from the impression I've formed. I too fly FW and rotary.
You said on another thread that your (very experienced) "principal instructor" tells you that you fly "better than many he has worked with." Are you perhaps allowing yourself to be a little carried away by his charm/flattery?
That's very gracious of you.
FL
As a refugee from 40 years in the FW world, I am still surprised at the relatively "wild west" mindset that is very much in evidence in the RW world.
It's a bold assertion from a private pilot who has been flying helicopters for only 4 years.
It's also very different from the impression I've formed. I too fly FW and rotary.
You said on another thread that your (very experienced) "principal instructor" tells you that you fly "better than many he has worked with." Are you perhaps allowing yourself to be a little carried away by his charm/flattery?
I dont have any problem with making ESSENTIAL allowances for unusual ops or difficult circumstances provided an appropriate level of judgment/risk management is applied.
FL
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
Most of my contacts, both direct and indirect, have been with professional pilots (military, HEMS, instructors, examiners, FAA, charter, etc), some of them posters here. The wild west mindset I referred to is in part due to the relatively young age of the helicopter industry compared to FW aviation, to the relatively small size of the helicopter fleet, and to the relatively slow technological progress of RW compared to FW, and is diminishing as the RW world changes to a more structured and "professional" environment, no doubt to the dismay of some. My comment was in comparison to the FW world, not in absolute terms.
Actually, to be accurate, a commercial pilot. I have been fortunate to have worked with a number of highly experienced helicopter pilots, instructors, and examiners in the relatively short time I have been flying helicopters and have made it a point to learn what I can from them, both in a formal and informal sense. Sitting around the dinner table and just listening to these guys is a most productive learning experience, especially regarding issues like the main topic of this thread.
Carried away to where? If you knew this instructor, you would be very clear that charm/flattery is not part of his repertoire. He speaks his mind and isnt all that concerned by what anyone thinks of what he says. With something like 25,000 hours in helicopters he has no need to flatter anyone. If anything he is more demanding than most I have worked with. A pro in every sense of the word. Additionally, with a 45 year involvement in aviation, including training at some of the better known training organizations, one develops something of a sense of what professional grade flying looks like - something I am working hard to achieve and maintain. I dont recall the context of the thread from which you are quoting, but I assure you that the point was not to promote my flying skills.
If by this you intend sarcasm, that is not unexpected from a certain small segment of those who post here. If not, thank you. Your comment arises from a comment I made re safety. Aviation safety is a special interest area for me and I have done considerable work in this area, including developing a safety management system for owner flown helicopters which has received favorable reviews from a range of aviation safety and insurance professionals. I dont hold myself out as an expert in this area, but do feel competent to express an opinion now and then.
Are you referring to professional helicopter pilots or private pilots, or both?
It's a bold assertion from a private pilot
Are you perhaps allowing yourself to be a little carried away by his charm/flattery?
That's very gracious of you.
Last edited by EN48; 13th Jul 2011 at 23:27.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
FL to EN48
EN, can you confirm for us please that when you say your 'principal instructor', you mean someone that you pay to teach you to fly?
Another EN classic;
"I have learned something from every instructor I have worked with."
I wonder what they have learnt from working with you !
EN48, or is that 78, spills his beans
You said on another thread that your (very experienced) "principal instructor" tells you that you fly "better than many he has worked with."
Another EN classic;
"I have learned something from every instructor I have worked with."
I wonder what they have learnt from working with you !
EN48, or is that 78, spills his beans
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that its my turn in the barrel at pprune.
Taken out of context, this does sound ridiculous. I should have been more precise and said that I have learned something NEW from each instuctor. Each teaches a bit differently and not all cover the same topics. I have found it useful to fly with several different instructors to fill in the gaps.
No need to wonder - here are some examples:
1. My background in computer engineering has resulted in a particular interest in avionics. The aircraft I have operated over the years have typically been equipped with advanced avionics (for the time) and my instructors were often unfamiliar with this equipment. At their request, I have briefed my instructors on many occasions on the use of this equipment.
2. As an owner operator, one is also the de facto Director of Maintenance - not turning wrenches, but assuring that necessary work is done on a timely basis. This has led me to be diligent about having current, detailed knowledge regarding AD's, SB's, SL's etc. for airframe, engine, and avionics. Instructors who train in a variety of aircraft are often not up to speed on these details, and are usually interested in knowing more.
This quote was taken out of context by FL from a thread dealing with the topic of "how old is too old to learn to fly a helicopter." My post made the point that age, per se, is not all that important, and went on to cite some personal data to support this point, as did several other posters. My post was intended to encourage those who might be reluctant because of age to give helicopter flying a try. I consider myself very much a newbie in the helicopter world, and was not intending to be boastful. If it sounded this way, it is is more due to my poor writing skills rather than attitude.
Another EN classic;
"I have learned something from every instructor I have worked with."
"I have learned something from every instructor I have worked with."
I wonder what they have learnt from working with you !
1. My background in computer engineering has resulted in a particular interest in avionics. The aircraft I have operated over the years have typically been equipped with advanced avionics (for the time) and my instructors were often unfamiliar with this equipment. At their request, I have briefed my instructors on many occasions on the use of this equipment.
2. As an owner operator, one is also the de facto Director of Maintenance - not turning wrenches, but assuring that necessary work is done on a timely basis. This has led me to be diligent about having current, detailed knowledge regarding AD's, SB's, SL's etc. for airframe, engine, and avionics. Instructors who train in a variety of aircraft are often not up to speed on these details, and are usually interested in knowing more.
your (very experienced) "principal instructor" tells you that you fly "better than many he has worked with."
Last edited by EN48; 13th Jul 2011 at 23:34.