AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Therein lies my point 212man - the autopilot modes were designed around what was possible at the time (clearly collective coupling wasn't) but most pilots are taught to fly on a non-autopilot machines.
Is it not therefore surprising that, under pressure, one reverts to what one was first taught (and had beaten into you - attitude= speed and lever = height) not what one has subsequently learned?
Is it not therefore surprising that, under pressure, one reverts to what one was first taught (and had beaten into you - attitude= speed and lever = height) not what one has subsequently learned?
Therein lies my point, it is the ab initio instructing that is at fault!
BTW, hello Sarah!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
CRAB POST 1237
Hi Crab,
I think your comments in post 1237 describe the problem of mixed mode flying extremely well.
With regular practice it is manageable. However, at min speed like Vy, so close to the back ofthe power curve, the margins of safety presented by the complexities of the subsequent "effects of controls" when the vertical mode is on the cyclic, are severly eroded.
It's very hard to understand why a crew of an L2 would put themselves in this position instead of simply leaning forward and engaging the full coupler.
Despite the posters on this site trying to give the impression that this kind of approach is, and should be routine, the reality is that in NS ops, a Localiser only approach to minimums is probably a once or twice in a career event for NS crews.
I think your comments in post 1237 describe the problem of mixed mode flying extremely well.
With regular practice it is manageable. However, at min speed like Vy, so close to the back ofthe power curve, the margins of safety presented by the complexities of the subsequent "effects of controls" when the vertical mode is on the cyclic, are severly eroded.
It's very hard to understand why a crew of an L2 would put themselves in this position instead of simply leaning forward and engaging the full coupler.
Despite the posters on this site trying to give the impression that this kind of approach is, and should be routine, the reality is that in NS ops, a Localiser only approach to minimums is probably a once or twice in a career event for NS crews.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do any of the North Sea helicopter operators use any form of stabilised approach criteria for normal instrument approaches to airports, as we do in the airlines? For example, 1000ft in IMC or 500ft in VMC. If not stable we go around, no debate.
Therein lies my point, it is the ab initio instructing that is at fault!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norway
Age: 45
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MightyGem
Seeing there are "underwater emergency breathing apparatus"on sale why don't all passengers carry them.
First read about them on tuna boat flying and someone carried one with him in case he went for an unexpected swim.
Seems they are good for 30 breaths or a couple of minutes.
First read about them on tuna boat flying and someone carried one with him in case he went for an unexpected swim.
Seems they are good for 30 breaths or a couple of minutes.
http://www.pose-online.com/index.php...&category_id=3
I've been involved in dunker training of both HEMS crews and North Sea pilots and passenger, and also had the pleasure of doing the refresher training for the crew of the SA365 N1 who crashed in Vågåvatnet, Norway in 2004.
The pilot stated to us and also in the official AIBN-report that the dunker training had been absolutely crucial for his survival in this situation. HEMS crews and other pilots use HABD or HEED systems, but offshore passengers use a type of re-breather that rules out the complications related to using pressurized air.
When the water is as cold as in the North Sea the extra minutes you gain from these kinds of systems could make a big difference when it comes to escape, and it also will prevent the user from breathing in cold water due to reflex.
HC, Sarah is just my weekend name (joke btw) or are you referring to the SAR Force Cdr?
So you are saying that we should change the way we teach people to fly helicopters just to meet the poor ergonomics of a French autopilot!
So you are saying that we should change the way we teach people to fly helicopters just to meet the poor ergonomics of a French autopilot!
Originally Posted by [email protected]
HC, Sarah is just my weekend name (joke btw) or are you referring to the SAR Force Cdr?
So you are saying that we should change the way we teach people to fly helicopters just to meet the poor ergonomics of a French autopilot!
So you are saying that we should change the way we teach people to fly helicopters just to meet the poor ergonomics of a French autopilot!
I fully appreciate I'm never going to break you from your military indoctrination via Prune, it'll have to wait until you get a proper job.
For real, possibly, although I think I have done a fair few. But surely its something that is done every 6 months in training, mostly in the aircraft and recently of course, in the Sim? Well a non-precision approach anyway, whether its a VOR, NDB, or LOC. It was always a favourite trick in the sim to lead the crew into expecting an ILS but then have the GS fail just before (or even during, if you were mean) the approach thus making it a Loc approach.
I don't think it is just the military who teach people to fly helicopters using lever for height and cyclic for speed.
I spent several years flying the Gazelle so blasting around at a fixed pitch setting varying speed to gain or lose height isn't a novel experience.
The 3A SeaKing has a TAS hold so ILS and other apps are usually flown with that cyclic mode engaged and the RoD flown manually on the collective - it seems to work well and there is never any confusion about which control is doing what.
The SAR modes can do fully coupled letdowns to the hover but the speed is always the cyclic program and the height is always the collective program - either can be flown manually with the other still coupled. It seems to work for us and is consistent with basic helicopter skills - maybe that is why we haven't flown any serviceable one into the sea.
I spent several years flying the Gazelle so blasting around at a fixed pitch setting varying speed to gain or lose height isn't a novel experience.
The 3A SeaKing has a TAS hold so ILS and other apps are usually flown with that cyclic mode engaged and the RoD flown manually on the collective - it seems to work well and there is never any confusion about which control is doing what.
The SAR modes can do fully coupled letdowns to the hover but the speed is always the cyclic program and the height is always the collective program - either can be flown manually with the other still coupled. It seems to work for us and is consistent with basic helicopter skills - maybe that is why we haven't flown any serviceable one into the sea.
These last few pages regarding autopilot use has been quite thought provoking.
Despite considering myself reasonably experienced, I am acutely aware that there is much I don't know and have spent some time considering how I fly and whether it could be improved upon. I currently fly a modern 4 axis AP machine similar to those employed on the NS, but in the corporate role.
So some thoughts:
1. When I fly a 3 axis NPA, I do so with airspeed (AS) hold engaged and I control the RoD directly with collective. It would appear that most of you on the NS, fly with VS engaged, so I have considered why I am at odds with all of you and the following comes to mind:
a) I have tried vertical speed (VS) and have found that the rate of change of VS is too slow (I experimentally tried it on a PAR and there was no way I could control the RoD at the rate the controller required)
b) The controls work in the "traditional" way - ie collective (flown by me) controls RoD. The cyclic (via AP) holds my desired speed.
c) It fits historical expectations - on an initial IR and subsequent LPC's, the examiner asks you what speed you intend to fly the approach, implying a steady speed. By using AS hold, you are getting the AP to do that for you.
d) Finally, and here my knowledge is a little ragged, and my aircraft RFM is of little help - I believe that if you fly an APP uncoupled, BUT with the Flight Director engaged, that the collective demand bar is telling you what to do to maintain GP (on an ILS for example) and the pitch command bar is showing you what to do with cyclic to hold speed - ie "traditional" flying
2. I am one of those pilots who occasionally, when autopilot hasn't done what I expected, have decoupled and flown myself (in fact I did so on my last LPC). Generally, I have regained parameters, and then recoupled. Again, I have asked myself why and come to the following conclusions:
a) Controlling the AP when everything is going as you expect is straightforward - when things go awry (and I admit, most often because of operator error), recovery can be slow.
b) I have NEVER, EVER been taught Unusual Attitude recovery by using the autopilot have you? And at what attitudes/speeds etc?
c) I treat the AP as my co-pilot ("George"). If George doesn't do as I expect (again, most likely because I've incorrectly briefed him - ie pressed wrong buttons/sequence/set wrong datum) and its not possible to quickly correct through autopilot manipulation, then I take control - that's why I monitor it/him.
Going back to the first point, I understand that collective can have marked effects on other axis, but smooth application can still result in rapid response with easily controlled secondary effects.
Despite considering myself reasonably experienced, I am acutely aware that there is much I don't know and have spent some time considering how I fly and whether it could be improved upon. I currently fly a modern 4 axis AP machine similar to those employed on the NS, but in the corporate role.
So some thoughts:
1. When I fly a 3 axis NPA, I do so with airspeed (AS) hold engaged and I control the RoD directly with collective. It would appear that most of you on the NS, fly with VS engaged, so I have considered why I am at odds with all of you and the following comes to mind:
a) I have tried vertical speed (VS) and have found that the rate of change of VS is too slow (I experimentally tried it on a PAR and there was no way I could control the RoD at the rate the controller required)
b) The controls work in the "traditional" way - ie collective (flown by me) controls RoD. The cyclic (via AP) holds my desired speed.
c) It fits historical expectations - on an initial IR and subsequent LPC's, the examiner asks you what speed you intend to fly the approach, implying a steady speed. By using AS hold, you are getting the AP to do that for you.
d) Finally, and here my knowledge is a little ragged, and my aircraft RFM is of little help - I believe that if you fly an APP uncoupled, BUT with the Flight Director engaged, that the collective demand bar is telling you what to do to maintain GP (on an ILS for example) and the pitch command bar is showing you what to do with cyclic to hold speed - ie "traditional" flying
2. I am one of those pilots who occasionally, when autopilot hasn't done what I expected, have decoupled and flown myself (in fact I did so on my last LPC). Generally, I have regained parameters, and then recoupled. Again, I have asked myself why and come to the following conclusions:
a) Controlling the AP when everything is going as you expect is straightforward - when things go awry (and I admit, most often because of operator error), recovery can be slow.
b) I have NEVER, EVER been taught Unusual Attitude recovery by using the autopilot have you? And at what attitudes/speeds etc?
c) I treat the AP as my co-pilot ("George"). If George doesn't do as I expect (again, most likely because I've incorrectly briefed him - ie pressed wrong buttons/sequence/set wrong datum) and its not possible to quickly correct through autopilot manipulation, then I take control - that's why I monitor it/him.
Going back to the first point, I understand that collective can have marked effects on other axis, but smooth application can still result in rapid response with easily controlled secondary effects.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Hi Paul why do you not fly all approaches 4 axis coupled. It is much easier and far safer if you have a DAFSC.
CRAB 24 years ago I was flying the S61 in Sumburgh.I think we only had heading hold of some kind. A funny triangle shaped button on the AP panel. No ALT or IAS holds.
Does your Seaking allow you to couple in 3 Axis (ie cyclic alone)???
DB
CRAB 24 years ago I was flying the S61 in Sumburgh.I think we only had heading hold of some kind. A funny triangle shaped button on the AP panel. No ALT or IAS holds.
Does your Seaking allow you to couple in 3 Axis (ie cyclic alone)???
DB
.
North Sea helicopter safety faces wide-ranging review :
http://http://www.flightglobal.com/n...review-390245/
.
North Sea helicopter safety faces wide-ranging review :
http://http://www.flightglobal.com/n...review-390245/
.
DB - I should have said, IF I fly a 3 axis approach (up until recently, I was dual rated on a 3 axis aircraft too)
I would generally choose 4 axis approach over a 3 axis one given the choice, although AltA and VS still don't give the same fidelity for an MDA level off as a manually controlled collective.
I would generally choose 4 axis approach over a 3 axis one given the choice, although AltA and VS still don't give the same fidelity for an MDA level off as a manually controlled collective.
DB - only the 3A Sea King has a TAS hold - the autopilot functions are pretty basic but the RNAV can fly the aircraft round the sky. There are the normal rad alt and bar alt holds with a manoeuvre facility but that is it.
There is no way, other than on the SAR transitions, to get the aircraft to fly any form of approach other than the TAS hold for an instrument approach.
For the SAR transitions to and from the hover, it is fully coupled and, if required, either the cyclic or collective programs can be manually flown.
There is no way, other than on the SAR transitions, to get the aircraft to fly any form of approach other than the TAS hold for an instrument approach.
For the SAR transitions to and from the hover, it is fully coupled and, if required, either the cyclic or collective programs can be manually flown.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely with the current EC225 gearbox weakness where the new MOD 45 warning throws a spurious alarm if the aircraft is descending at IAS > 125knots, height would necessarily be controlled with the collective on any approach, I imagine that you have to use the IAS hold to ensure that descent is carried out at < 125knots?
YOP
In the present climate of automation I think it would be a better idea for commercial fix wing pilots to have recent experience in flying light a/c.
All flying experience is valuable, fixed or rotary. I was lucky to be selected to fly Air Experience sorties for Air Training Corps Cadets in firstly the Chipmunk (bliss) then the Bulldog and finally the Tutor from 1988 til 2013. These 25 min sorties usually involved aerobatics as well as simple "instruction" on how to fly the a/c. I always used power/attitude/ trim to show how to accurately fly the a/c.
The reason that the RAF uses collective to control height and cyclic speed is accuracy. Most RAF missions require accurate time on target so one usually flies at a multiple of 60 to make it easier to work out mentally. I seem to remember the Wessex was 90Kts whereas the JP5A was 240 cruise 300 IP to target.
The ability to fly accurately during training also demonstrates your capabilities - any body can gash around the sky meandering +/-5Kts and 100ft. If you couldn't fly accurately then you were politely shown the door or became a navigator
.
HC's idea that all flying training should reflect the one case where your are power limited is very odd. If you are a capable pilot then you know not to overtorque - a simple concept
I believe that most ex mil pilots will be more than capable of flying an ILS using the PAT principal, I certainly did - setting a power, depending on the strength of wind and hence RoD, and an attitude depending on the speed ATC/weather required. Bobs your uncle down the slope you went!!
HF
I sometimes wonder if commercial helicopter pilots should be required to have instrument fixed wing experience.
All flying experience is valuable, fixed or rotary. I was lucky to be selected to fly Air Experience sorties for Air Training Corps Cadets in firstly the Chipmunk (bliss) then the Bulldog and finally the Tutor from 1988 til 2013. These 25 min sorties usually involved aerobatics as well as simple "instruction" on how to fly the a/c. I always used power/attitude/ trim to show how to accurately fly the a/c.
The reason that the RAF uses collective to control height and cyclic speed is accuracy. Most RAF missions require accurate time on target so one usually flies at a multiple of 60 to make it easier to work out mentally. I seem to remember the Wessex was 90Kts whereas the JP5A was 240 cruise 300 IP to target.
The ability to fly accurately during training also demonstrates your capabilities - any body can gash around the sky meandering +/-5Kts and 100ft. If you couldn't fly accurately then you were politely shown the door or became a navigator
.HC's idea that all flying training should reflect the one case where your are power limited is very odd. If you are a capable pilot then you know not to overtorque - a simple concept
I believe that most ex mil pilots will be more than capable of flying an ILS using the PAT principal, I certainly did - setting a power, depending on the strength of wind and hence RoD, and an attitude depending on the speed ATC/weather required. Bobs your uncle down the slope you went!!HF
Only if you never fly near a power limit does controlling height always with the collective, work, and even then it can increase the workload significantly as I explained in my "ILS students" post.
I fully appreciate I'm never going to break you from your military indoctrination via Prune, it'll have to wait until you get a proper job.
I fully appreciate I'm never going to break you from your military indoctrination via Prune, it'll have to wait until you get a proper job.
The last comment smacks of a chip on the shoulder, military pilots are no more or less indoctrinated than their civilian counterparts. There seems to be a small contingent within these forums desperate to drag everything back to a military v civilian bitchfest, a shame as this only serves as a petty sideshow to some really thought-provoking posts.