Are students aware of the danger they are in!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are students aware of the danger they are in!?
A moral issue..... should students be told of the danger they are in by a third party?
I was at a near south coast airfield today and was stunned to see an R22 hovering at 100ft after some so called exercises. Down wind manoeuvres in the avoid curve and pirouettes being performed down wind at approximately 50ft. From my observations the sortie was primarily conducted with-in the avoid curve.
My question for discussion is.... Some students are blissfully unaware of the dangers an FI will put them in. From a moral standpoint, if the FI will not tell the student they are in danger, should someone else!?
I was at a near south coast airfield today and was stunned to see an R22 hovering at 100ft after some so called exercises. Down wind manoeuvres in the avoid curve and pirouettes being performed down wind at approximately 50ft. From my observations the sortie was primarily conducted with-in the avoid curve.
My question for discussion is.... Some students are blissfully unaware of the dangers an FI will put them in. From a moral standpoint, if the FI will not tell the student they are in danger, should someone else!?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any idea what was being discussed in the cockpit? What makes you think it was a student? PPL CPL student?
It is an 'avoid' curve after all, not a 'never ever fly in here' curve.
I'm sure there will have been a good reason. As for whether students should be told the dangers, they are as far as I remember, though normally by their instructors.
TN
It is an 'avoid' curve after all, not a 'never ever fly in here' curve.
I'm sure there will have been a good reason. As for whether students should be told the dangers, they are as far as I remember, though normally by their instructors.
TN
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
..pirouettes being performed down wind..
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
Sounds like vertical take-offs and landings with downwind quick stop practice. Not "so-called exercises" but legitimate exercises.
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Heliblob, did you eventually get your CPL and FI tickets?
Downwind quickstops sound a bit dodgy, sorry Whirls.
Unless you mean the flare and turn (or turn and flare) type that start downwind and leave you rolling out into wind to terminate.
Unless you mean the flare and turn (or turn and flare) type that start downwind and leave you rolling out into wind to terminate.
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
That's exactly what I mean - I think maybe there are terminology differences in the colonies. 
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it interesting how the choice of words makes such a difference and reveals the intentions of the author.
Heliblob uses the word "danger" because he thinks the risk is too large. If you replaced "the danger they are in "with the risks they are exposed to" it becomes much less dramatic and emotive.
Most activities and certainly those in aviation incur risks, but they are more or less balanced by some benefit. Becoming a pilot involves learning to manage those risks. One of the classic risks that comes up for discussion so often is the question of engine failure, especially in a single engine helicopter. In my view its role is over-emphasised - just take a look at the accident stats.
Most national aviation authorities are pre-occupied with engine failure. Perhaps in commercial air transport operations there is a case for this, because other risks should have been managed so that they are (or should be) well-controlled. However, in private operations pilots are permitted to operate in the avoid curve. Not quite all risk has been regulated away and there is a utility value to being there occasionally. If it is permissible to operate privately in that area, exposed to that risk, then surely it is appropriate for a student to be taught about these manoeuvres. After all, they are in the syllabus.
However, if it was me I would spend the least amount of time exposed that I could. This is both to manage the risks of the particular flight and also to teach the student about managing the risk. Example is such an important thing for a student. Don't sit in the high hover to debrief, but complete the manoeuvre down to a normal hover level, before debriefing. Professional helicopters minimise risk and only incur risk where it is necessary for the task. Some pilots positively like risk, but IMHO NOT professional ones. Perhaps that is one of things that distinguishes truly professional pilots (rather than just those with a commercial licence).
Heliblob does not tell us enough to know whether what the instructor was doing was reasonable. His suggestion about a third party getting involved sounds premature to me, putting it politely.
Heliblob uses the word "danger" because he thinks the risk is too large. If you replaced "the danger they are in "with the risks they are exposed to" it becomes much less dramatic and emotive.
Most activities and certainly those in aviation incur risks, but they are more or less balanced by some benefit. Becoming a pilot involves learning to manage those risks. One of the classic risks that comes up for discussion so often is the question of engine failure, especially in a single engine helicopter. In my view its role is over-emphasised - just take a look at the accident stats.
Most national aviation authorities are pre-occupied with engine failure. Perhaps in commercial air transport operations there is a case for this, because other risks should have been managed so that they are (or should be) well-controlled. However, in private operations pilots are permitted to operate in the avoid curve. Not quite all risk has been regulated away and there is a utility value to being there occasionally. If it is permissible to operate privately in that area, exposed to that risk, then surely it is appropriate for a student to be taught about these manoeuvres. After all, they are in the syllabus.
However, if it was me I would spend the least amount of time exposed that I could. This is both to manage the risks of the particular flight and also to teach the student about managing the risk. Example is such an important thing for a student. Don't sit in the high hover to debrief, but complete the manoeuvre down to a normal hover level, before debriefing. Professional helicopters minimise risk and only incur risk where it is necessary for the task. Some pilots positively like risk, but IMHO NOT professional ones. Perhaps that is one of things that distinguishes truly professional pilots (rather than just those with a commercial licence).
Heliblob does not tell us enough to know whether what the instructor was doing was reasonable. His suggestion about a third party getting involved sounds premature to me, putting it politely.
That's exactly what I mean - I think maybe there are terminology differences in the colonies
Sorry, I thought you were talking about something that started and finished pointing downwind, which I hope isn't what Heliblob's been seeing.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boundary Layer
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should someone else tell them?
Sure, the CFI or Head of Training is the one is responsible for what goes on, and the one who should decide whether a word in the shell-like of the instructor/pilot is necessary. Not having seen the manoeuvres, I couldn't comment whether they were "dangerous" or risky. It would depend on who was on board, what level of experience they have and what the objective of the flight was. If it was PPL training, Ex 23 Advanced take offs and landings / Ex 21 Quickstops, it might have been justified - whether they were performed minimising time in the avoid curve is another question.
Pirouettes are an exception - not part of the syllabus and not easy to justify why exactly you were doing them "at the time when the engine failed Your Honour" - except to say that they are fun and sell PPL training quite well. Hands up any instructor who has never done one just for the fun of it! They can also be a demonstration of how tail rotor thrust affects power available and therefore why they can be a dangerous thing to do.
Next question is, if this were a trial lesson, are those sort of manoeuvres that the punter has signed up for? Probably not, I've changed my mind over the years and cut out things like EOL's from the T/L format. They used to be almost standard, but the punter has signed up for "air experience" not simulated emergency training.
The avoid curve is just that - to be avoided if possible, but if we always followed the recommended take off profile, we might as well fly planks and only ever operate airfield to airfield.
My advice would be, unless there is a reason to be in the avoid curve, stay out of it! If you do have to go into it, minimise the time that you are exposed.
Nevertheless, pilots have a duty to share safety concerns, so talk to the pilot involved and find out what they were doing and why. If such behaviour is habitual and unjustified, then you may want to make sure that their CFI/ HoT is aware of your concerns.
I know of 2 instructors who became more and more cavalier until they had accidents. In both cases the worsening trend went unreported to the CFI until it was too late and it is a matter of regret that concerns were not raised earlier that may have avoided 2 needless deaths.
Pirouettes are an exception - not part of the syllabus and not easy to justify why exactly you were doing them "at the time when the engine failed Your Honour" - except to say that they are fun and sell PPL training quite well. Hands up any instructor who has never done one just for the fun of it! They can also be a demonstration of how tail rotor thrust affects power available and therefore why they can be a dangerous thing to do.
Next question is, if this were a trial lesson, are those sort of manoeuvres that the punter has signed up for? Probably not, I've changed my mind over the years and cut out things like EOL's from the T/L format. They used to be almost standard, but the punter has signed up for "air experience" not simulated emergency training.
The avoid curve is just that - to be avoided if possible, but if we always followed the recommended take off profile, we might as well fly planks and only ever operate airfield to airfield.
My advice would be, unless there is a reason to be in the avoid curve, stay out of it! If you do have to go into it, minimise the time that you are exposed.
Nevertheless, pilots have a duty to share safety concerns, so talk to the pilot involved and find out what they were doing and why. If such behaviour is habitual and unjustified, then you may want to make sure that their CFI/ HoT is aware of your concerns.
I know of 2 instructors who became more and more cavalier until they had accidents. In both cases the worsening trend went unreported to the CFI until it was too late and it is a matter of regret that concerns were not raised earlier that may have avoided 2 needless deaths.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have witnessed so many R22/R44's hovering, or hover-taxiing more than one rotor diameter from the ground, that I was beginning to think that it was normal practice!
So many I've lost count, (so it must be more than ten).
I must agree that engine failures are uncommon, so perhaps instructors are flying a bit further from the ground to give them more reaction time when "Bloggs" mishandles it.
This then leads to the student thinking it is normal to be this far from the ground.
Which then carries-over into their personal flying practice.
Just a thought.....
Feel-free to discuss.
So many I've lost count, (so it must be more than ten).
I must agree that engine failures are uncommon, so perhaps instructors are flying a bit further from the ground to give them more reaction time when "Bloggs" mishandles it.
This then leads to the student thinking it is normal to be this far from the ground.
Which then carries-over into their personal flying practice.
Just a thought.....
Feel-free to discuss.
Last edited by cladosporangium; 22nd Jul 2011 at 13:55. Reason: spelin
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are students aware of the danger they are in!?
Heliblobbbbbb,
Me thinks u ought to go out more, it's an avoid curve not a never curve!
How do you know what was being said in the cockpit and moreover, if you were so incensed that you seek to stir it up on here, why not go and see the instructor after the event and ask, instead of going home and jumping on the computer.....it might be quite informative!
Booom.
Me thinks u ought to go out more, it's an avoid curve not a never curve!
How do you know what was being said in the cockpit and moreover, if you were so incensed that you seek to stir it up on here, why not go and see the instructor after the event and ask, instead of going home and jumping on the computer.....it might be quite informative!
Booom.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Just try a hovering autorotation from 10' AGL with a slight delay from simulating the failure till raising the collective (and only raising the collective) to cure you from ever, ever, ever hovering above that height for more than the briefest time.
It's one thing to hover at more than 10' AGL with full knowledge of the consequences and with good reason for being there, and completely another thing to do with and not know what can happen.
The reason for the only raising the collective, as opposed to the standard training technique of smartly down with the collective followed by an almighty pull, is that nearly everyone who's ever had an engine failure in the hover has said that it all happened so quickly that all they had time to do was pull up on the collective. Good reason why the HV low hover test point is required to be demonstrated that way.
It's one thing to hover at more than 10' AGL with full knowledge of the consequences and with good reason for being there, and completely another thing to do with and not know what can happen.
The reason for the only raising the collective, as opposed to the standard training technique of smartly down with the collective followed by an almighty pull, is that nearly everyone who's ever had an engine failure in the hover has said that it all happened so quickly that all they had time to do was pull up on the collective. Good reason why the HV low hover test point is required to be demonstrated that way.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always like to see blogs check his keys t's and P's prior to every lift off.
why's that? comes the innocent q.
well ol' mate tha's cos when you walk in the hangar carrying the tail boom over your shoulder, with the explanation that the magnetos failed on take off. I will say wrong - dolt - they failed cos you failed to check em - eh!
oh yes, they can see the logic of that and nod wisely, oh so wisely.
but you see they weren't taught to do that as a young dog, so they don't do they, even on the next take off, often they won't.
so well, we're doing vertical take off's from confined areas, set the power slowly, if it climbs, if it don't chuck of some weight and how much weight equates to how much power an' how much power more than hoge is reqd to climb vertically, all that sort of thing and then.
we might even practice a benign abort procedure or two from about ten feet or so and sure enough they ain't checkin' them damm thaings afors take off.
then i just suddenly switch one magneto off, but as Shawn Coyle says I never ever in the R22 do that above 10 ft skid height. just in case the other one also fails.
From then on as you can imagine, blogs usually thinks about the checks, because at that point in time I always ask did he also do a fuel drain check before each and every start.
the motor will keep running won't it blogs? well has it got clean fuel or hasn't it?
well why don't we go ahead land, get out and check cos I watched when you started up an' you did not check it. Oh disturbed the routine again i have.!
why's that? comes the innocent q.
well ol' mate tha's cos when you walk in the hangar carrying the tail boom over your shoulder, with the explanation that the magnetos failed on take off. I will say wrong - dolt - they failed cos you failed to check em - eh!
oh yes, they can see the logic of that and nod wisely, oh so wisely.
but you see they weren't taught to do that as a young dog, so they don't do they, even on the next take off, often they won't.
so well, we're doing vertical take off's from confined areas, set the power slowly, if it climbs, if it don't chuck of some weight and how much weight equates to how much power an' how much power more than hoge is reqd to climb vertically, all that sort of thing and then.
we might even practice a benign abort procedure or two from about ten feet or so and sure enough they ain't checkin' them damm thaings afors take off.
then i just suddenly switch one magneto off, but as Shawn Coyle says I never ever in the R22 do that above 10 ft skid height. just in case the other one also fails.
From then on as you can imagine, blogs usually thinks about the checks, because at that point in time I always ask did he also do a fuel drain check before each and every start.
the motor will keep running won't it blogs? well has it got clean fuel or hasn't it?
well why don't we go ahead land, get out and check cos I watched when you started up an' you did not check it. Oh disturbed the routine again i have.!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heliblob raises an interesting point, which I have pondered on and been asked about in the past.
Teaching downwind quickstops is part of the syllabus that is courting danger from the avoid curve perspective, yet seems to have almost no relevance to PPL flying. Of course in its flare and turn variety it's very handy for getting into a hot landing site for the military, but why are we doing this with PPLs ?
I do think most students appreciate that the training course will put them at somewhat more risk than regular flying, but this one aspect seems a little gratuitous to me.
PS. don't get me wrong, I love doing them and teaching them, but I can't really see the risk reward equation for a PPL.
Teaching downwind quickstops is part of the syllabus that is courting danger from the avoid curve perspective, yet seems to have almost no relevance to PPL flying. Of course in its flare and turn variety it's very handy for getting into a hot landing site for the military, but why are we doing this with PPLs ?
I do think most students appreciate that the training course will put them at somewhat more risk than regular flying, but this one aspect seems a little gratuitous to me.
PS. don't get me wrong, I love doing them and teaching them, but I can't really see the risk reward equation for a PPL.
Puntosaurus, I reckon downwind quickstops are relevant and should be taught, with the following points kept in mind:
1. Many helicopter pilots go on to do jobs that require low flying (mustering, ag, filming etc) where this kind of manoueuvering is required, and learning the basics early is to my mind better than getting them as an 'add-on' later.
2. During the sequences, when you're flying downwind you have airspeed on your side. Once the speed reduction is commenced, you're flaring and turning into wind. The collective is partially lowered, so you're not in the high power part of the avoid curve as you would be on takeoff at the same height AGL, plus you have a lot of flare effect on your side.
3. Quickstops are a great judgement/skills exercise, a chance for students to get to know their aircraft's capabilities (and their own) without being silly about it. They fall into the worthwhile calculated risk category, as I see it.
1. Many helicopter pilots go on to do jobs that require low flying (mustering, ag, filming etc) where this kind of manoueuvering is required, and learning the basics early is to my mind better than getting them as an 'add-on' later.
2. During the sequences, when you're flying downwind you have airspeed on your side. Once the speed reduction is commenced, you're flaring and turning into wind. The collective is partially lowered, so you're not in the high power part of the avoid curve as you would be on takeoff at the same height AGL, plus you have a lot of flare effect on your side.
3. Quickstops are a great judgement/skills exercise, a chance for students to get to know their aircraft's capabilities (and their own) without being silly about it. They fall into the worthwhile calculated risk category, as I see it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds like a plausible argument for putting them in the CPL course, but not the PPL.
I can talk myself into the into wind quickstop as a great exercise in managing the machine close to the ground, but downwind seems like a bridge too far.
I'm pretty sure there would be tears before bedtime if I had an engine failure in an R22 from 50kt downwind at 30-50ft.
I can talk myself into the into wind quickstop as a great exercise in managing the machine close to the ground, but downwind seems like a bridge too far.
I'm pretty sure there would be tears before bedtime if I had an engine failure in an R22 from 50kt downwind at 30-50ft.