Entering autos: discussion split from Glasgow crash thread
TC,
F..k boy! You must be the one pulling up the stats then! That must be an achievement by itself
Finally Peter - I have done hundreds of real engine failures in singles most of which were not at FI, but actually stopped - fuel and all.
OK SAS, I'll bite just a bit. Yes the Cougar accident was down to not following the correct drill (although of course a more timely technical response to the oil filter issue would have prevented it in the first place). However there was always a suspicion that the publicity machine of the manufacturer could have laid a seed of doubt in the minds of the pilots. Or maybe not, we will never really know.
But what I do know from first hand experience was that, when the subject of 30 mins dry run etc was aired extensively on here originally, NL was far from up front about it. I don't think he actually lied, but he was obfuscating in his replies to clear and unambiguous questions. And he certainly had no courtesy for me, trying to expose the truth as I was. OK he had his job to think about but sorry, trust is hard won and easily lost. For me, that trust is lost because as I said, whilst in many ways he is a great guy (I once had dinner with him and it was a great night), he blotted his copy book big time.
So whilst you and your fellow Americans (and even SP!) can worship him, you will hopefully forgive me if I am not a member of that religion.
But what I do know from first hand experience was that, when the subject of 30 mins dry run etc was aired extensively on here originally, NL was far from up front about it. I don't think he actually lied, but he was obfuscating in his replies to clear and unambiguous questions. And he certainly had no courtesy for me, trying to expose the truth as I was. OK he had his job to think about but sorry, trust is hard won and easily lost. For me, that trust is lost because as I said, whilst in many ways he is a great guy (I once had dinner with him and it was a great night), he blotted his copy book big time.
So whilst you and your fellow Americans (and even SP!) can worship him, you will hopefully forgive me if I am not a member of that religion.
The Canadian TSB Report on the Cougar Crash off Newfoundland.
When we talked of a "Shields Down" review of the Offshore Helicopter Industry....this Report would be a good start.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...6/a09a0016.pdf
NO.... I do not agree with such a blanket, covers all possibilities, statement.
As I have said before....in this thread....if you have airspeed to trade....yes....it cannot hurt and does use "energy" that is available.
I have said...."moving the Cyclic Aft in most cases will do no harm...".
I have also said....Cook Book Pilots kill themselves with great regularly.
Knowing instinctively what is the best reaction to a sudden dangerous situation is the key to Survival.....and one cannot do that using a single reaction derived from a "Cook Book" way of piloting.
By the way.....I was wrong.....I count the Co-Pilot recommending "Ditching" three times to the Captain.
Also....the Captain mis-diagnosed the problem and failed to properly assess the indications being provided by the aircraft instrumentation.
There was no discussion in the Cockpit about the 30 Minute Run Dry capability at all. It would appear the Sea State and Weather combined with his thinking it was a pump failure that drove his decision.
I suggest a slow methodical reading of the TSB Report....as it might prove beneficial to one's views on that Crash.
The TSB found issues in multiple areas, Certification, Training, Aircraft Documentation, SOP's, Engineering/Maintenance, HSE, CRM, and Human Factors.
When we talked of a "Shields Down" review of the Offshore Helicopter Industry....this Report would be a good start.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...6/a09a0016.pdf
Surely SAS you must agree that the most efficient and sensible way to recover decayed NR is to flare.
As I have said before....in this thread....if you have airspeed to trade....yes....it cannot hurt and does use "energy" that is available.
I have said...."moving the Cyclic Aft in most cases will do no harm...".
I have also said....Cook Book Pilots kill themselves with great regularly.
Knowing instinctively what is the best reaction to a sudden dangerous situation is the key to Survival.....and one cannot do that using a single reaction derived from a "Cook Book" way of piloting.
By the way.....I was wrong.....I count the Co-Pilot recommending "Ditching" three times to the Captain.
Also....the Captain mis-diagnosed the problem and failed to properly assess the indications being provided by the aircraft instrumentation.
There was no discussion in the Cockpit about the 30 Minute Run Dry capability at all. It would appear the Sea State and Weather combined with his thinking it was a pump failure that drove his decision.
I suggest a slow methodical reading of the TSB Report....as it might prove beneficial to one's views on that Crash.
The TSB found issues in multiple areas, Certification, Training, Aircraft Documentation, SOP's, Engineering/Maintenance, HSE, CRM, and Human Factors.
Last edited by SASless; 16th Dec 2013 at 12:40.
This chest beating arse was responsible for the demise of the S92 in Newfoundland!
DB:
You're nearly there - one more hurdle and that is have some humility and accept that not only are you now saying it (see below), but you might even be believing it:
Think about that for a while...take a deep breath and ask yourself if you genuinely believe that THE most efficient and sensible way to recover Nr is to flare. If I asked that exact question to a 1000 helicopter pilots in the street and without warning, what do you hand on heart really think they will say DB?
You're nearly there - one more hurdle and that is have some humility and accept that not only are you now saying it (see below), but you might even be believing it:
However, being a fair man I will offer you a chance to withdraw that statement and agree that the number one priority is to safely establish into autorotation....followed by assessing your options
Surely SAS you must agree that the most efficient and sensible way to recover decayed NR is to flare. If you do not have the speed to flare you are in deep do do.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TC - as I suspect we are both products from the same flight school the technical answer as follows:
1. Lever fully down
2. Flare to recover NR
3. Reapply collective to control NR
4. STABILISE
5. Think - options- checks.
This is for forward flight. Did I pass your test??
I have never had an engine failure in a single. I had a few in a twin. Including some self induced decay in NR. Plenty of EOLs with the engine running at idle - Including from a 500 foot hover. However like I said some posts back these are skills that are 20 years old. I fly large MEHs and up until this accident and the postings by Henra and Peter I had not properly or fully appreciated how fast the NR becomes unrecoverable.
May I ask how you have managed to do a lot of EOLS (I think you said hundreds) with the engine shutdown??
PS I have answered your question and note that you did not answer mine!!
DB
1. Lever fully down
2. Flare to recover NR
3. Reapply collective to control NR
4. STABILISE
5. Think - options- checks.
This is for forward flight. Did I pass your test??
I have never had an engine failure in a single. I had a few in a twin. Including some self induced decay in NR. Plenty of EOLs with the engine running at idle - Including from a 500 foot hover. However like I said some posts back these are skills that are 20 years old. I fly large MEHs and up until this accident and the postings by Henra and Peter I had not properly or fully appreciated how fast the NR becomes unrecoverable.
May I ask how you have managed to do a lot of EOLS (I think you said hundreds) with the engine shutdown??
PS I have answered your question and note that you did not answer mine!!
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 16th Dec 2013 at 13:00.
John Dixon and John Eacott - the very fact is has taken you both a few posting to explain the numbers.......and then qualify that by saying you need to be close to the ground at low NR is testament to the utterly misleading and dangerous content of your posts.
Nick Lappos preaches "follow the RFM limitations"
No helicopter I am aware off has a power off limitation in the 60% range.
You cannot have it both ways.
Nick Lappos preaches "follow the RFM limitations"
No helicopter I am aware off has a power off limitation in the 60% range.
You cannot have it both ways.
My post was to henra, suggesting that he refrain from bringing 60%Nr into the discussion since he had misread John Dixon's post.
The inability of some people here to read a post never ceases to amaze me.
Edited: to say on reflection I did not want to be rude to the two Johns although reading my post this seems apparent. I would just like them to step in line with Nick's posting that the RFM, is our only reference and in doing so hope that the Test Pilots (maybe them) got it correct the first time.
DB,
In response to your question to Tailspin.....do you really not grasp the "Wrongness" of your post....as it purely stinks on multiple levels.
Read the entire TSB Report....every word, sentence, paragraph, page, photo, diagram and reference....then check back in with us will you?
Then....read up on the ROE here at Rotorheads....and consider your comments.
When proven Experts are greeted with comments as they have here....no wonder they have to be asked to post.
We lose very good sources of information as a result.
Do you treat the designers of the Comet as harshly.....or the designer of the Titantic.....or the EC MGB Design Engineers....the way you are some here? Every new aircraft has its teething problems with most being unforeseen.
You spoke out of turn.....admit it.....apologize and move on.
I shall make a public apology to Brother Dixon and Nick Lappos.....as I asked them to join this discussion as i felt they had some valuable experience doing Test Work that wrote the Book on several aircraft particularly doing Test Work that led to the compilation of HV Data. I apologize to them for the way they have been treated by some here as it was unwarranted and unprofessional.
They have been very gentlemanly by their lack of response to the insults made here....which speaks to their good Character and decorum.
I cannot say that about those who resorted to insults to them.
Brother Dixon...Nick....accept my sincere Apologies!
Friend Eacott....pointing out some poster's demonstrated Bias is as it should be. Likewise, pointing out the detrimental effect it has on the Forum is spot on.
In response to your question to Tailspin.....do you really not grasp the "Wrongness" of your post....as it purely stinks on multiple levels.
Read the entire TSB Report....every word, sentence, paragraph, page, photo, diagram and reference....then check back in with us will you?
Then....read up on the ROE here at Rotorheads....and consider your comments.
When proven Experts are greeted with comments as they have here....no wonder they have to be asked to post.
We lose very good sources of information as a result.
Do you treat the designers of the Comet as harshly.....or the designer of the Titantic.....or the EC MGB Design Engineers....the way you are some here? Every new aircraft has its teething problems with most being unforeseen.
You spoke out of turn.....admit it.....apologize and move on.
I shall make a public apology to Brother Dixon and Nick Lappos.....as I asked them to join this discussion as i felt they had some valuable experience doing Test Work that wrote the Book on several aircraft particularly doing Test Work that led to the compilation of HV Data. I apologize to them for the way they have been treated by some here as it was unwarranted and unprofessional.
They have been very gentlemanly by their lack of response to the insults made here....which speaks to their good Character and decorum.
I cannot say that about those who resorted to insults to them.
Brother Dixon...Nick....accept my sincere Apologies!
Friend Eacott....pointing out some poster's demonstrated Bias is as it should be. Likewise, pointing out the detrimental effect it has on the Forum is spot on.
You may give your full and faithful support to Nick as you see fit. What I suggest you (or rather, others) should not do is to require everyone else to have blind faith in absolutely every word he utters. Much of it is of course good. Some of it is not (in my opinion, of course) and it is often rather bullish, which tends to rile.
HC....you reckon continuing to pour gasoline on a fire is a good way to put it out?
Let he who be without Sin cast the first Stone.
You have been chucking Rocks for quite a while and in most cases Nick merely filings them back. Granted he has thrown a few himself over the years but then it takes two to Tango you know.
My advice to all parties of that Bun fight is to withdraw to neutral corners.
With the less than stellar record of the EC Line on the North Sea of late....casting dispersions on the 92 does seem a bit lame you know.
Added to the fact the 92 is out selling the 225 does not lend much credence to the claims of superiority of the 225 over the 92.
Most of us have grown weary of that line of talk and would much rather our attention be directed towards topics that are productive and beneficial to improving the level of discourse here.
Let he who be without Sin cast the first Stone.
You have been chucking Rocks for quite a while and in most cases Nick merely filings them back. Granted he has thrown a few himself over the years but then it takes two to Tango you know.
My advice to all parties of that Bun fight is to withdraw to neutral corners.
With the less than stellar record of the EC Line on the North Sea of late....casting dispersions on the 92 does seem a bit lame you know.
Added to the fact the 92 is out selling the 225 does not lend much credence to the claims of superiority of the 225 over the 92.
Most of us have grown weary of that line of talk and would much rather our attention be directed towards topics that are productive and beneficial to improving the level of discourse here.
HC....you reckon continuing to pour gasoline on a fire is a good way to put it out?
Let he who be without Sin cast the first Stone.
You have been chucking Rocks for quite a while and in most cases Nick merely filings them back. Granted he has thrown a few himself over the years but then it takes two to Tango you know.
My advice to all parties of that Bun fight is to withdraw to neutral corners.
With the less than stellar record of the EC Line on the North Sea of late....casting dispersions on the 92 does seem a bit lame you know.
Added to the fact the 92 is out selling the 225 does not lend much credence to the claims of superiority of the 225 over the 92.
Most of us have grown weary of that line of talk and would much rather our attention be directed towards topics that are productive and beneficial to improving the level of discourse here.
Let he who be without Sin cast the first Stone.
You have been chucking Rocks for quite a while and in most cases Nick merely filings them back. Granted he has thrown a few himself over the years but then it takes two to Tango you know.
My advice to all parties of that Bun fight is to withdraw to neutral corners.
With the less than stellar record of the EC Line on the North Sea of late....casting dispersions on the 92 does seem a bit lame you know.
Added to the fact the 92 is out selling the 225 does not lend much credence to the claims of superiority of the 225 over the 92.
Most of us have grown weary of that line of talk and would much rather our attention be directed towards topics that are productive and beneficial to improving the level of discourse here.
In terms of casting aspersions on individuals, I agree and am happy to desist, but it should be remembered how it started - by some folk attributing near godlike status to individuals and proclaiming that they cannot be argued with. That inevitably begs a counter point to be aired resulting in the unpleasantness you mention. It would be much better if people were left to speak for themselves, and be judged on the content, not on blind faith in everything they utter as seems to be expected by some here.
By all means support a point someone makes by agreeing with them, just don't tell others they mustn't argue because of the reputation of the originator.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
SAS - actually NO I do not see the wrongness of my posts apart from a misinterpretation of John Eacotts intent.
When very qualified people start posting complex explanations in direct contradiction to what is clearly, I mean very clearly, sensible guidance that is supported by the RFM, it makes me wonder of the motivation of such.
If its just to demonstrate to us mere mortals how little we all really know it is unforgivable. In my view these kinds of statements can lead to pilots believing the bull****. A factor that cannot be ruled out in the Newfie crash.
SAS - you are temporarily blinded by your loyalty to SK. I understand that. However, in my view the Newfie crash would have been very different had they followed the guidance in their checklist. Why the P1 choose not too is a subject for debate but it does not actually matter. What matters s that we at least learn that inappropriate statements, made by influential people, can be severely misleading if believed and followed by the unwary.
In a total power loss the pilot has but seconds to react - do you agree?
If this is the case what possible merit is there in JD posting details that suggest he may have more time than we think??
Honestly I am willing to listen to any sensible argument to the contrary on both elements of my post!!
DB
When very qualified people start posting complex explanations in direct contradiction to what is clearly, I mean very clearly, sensible guidance that is supported by the RFM, it makes me wonder of the motivation of such.
If its just to demonstrate to us mere mortals how little we all really know it is unforgivable. In my view these kinds of statements can lead to pilots believing the bull****. A factor that cannot be ruled out in the Newfie crash.
SAS - you are temporarily blinded by your loyalty to SK. I understand that. However, in my view the Newfie crash would have been very different had they followed the guidance in their checklist. Why the P1 choose not too is a subject for debate but it does not actually matter. What matters s that we at least learn that inappropriate statements, made by influential people, can be severely misleading if believed and followed by the unwary.
In a total power loss the pilot has but seconds to react - do you agree?
If this is the case what possible merit is there in JD posting details that suggest he may have more time than we think??
Honestly I am willing to listen to any sensible argument to the contrary on both elements of my post!!
DB
DB: I haven't seen any previous questions you require an answer to - have I missed something?
Meanwhile on planet Earth:
I got to thinking about these EOL's I used to do:
I used to do EOL's at the end of every trip with my student (other than the bleedin obvious like taxiing back from IF etc). But there were dedicated EOL trips (I think they were "D20" and "D21 low level EOL's") I did on average one of each of these every week. Each trip usually comprised maybe 10+ EOL's dependent on student capabilities. So at a conservative estimate that was 20 a week minimum for say 20 weeks a year (the other times were other non GFP sorties). Tha makes 400 EOL's a year. A tour in the RN is only 2 years, so 800 EOL's. Three tours in my 17yrs = 2400 EOL's. Now let's all agree that these "EOL's" as I call them are not really EOL's in Peter Gillies dictionary because the engine stayed at FI throughout and even if one did complete the exercise by landing on the ground with "no engine" there was engine drag in there somewhere - he is quite right about that. But you have to agree as I am sure you must have done similar (though not to the same excessive numbers - in the Army with the Mk1) on the day of the race there is absolutely no room for error.
Now - of those 2400+ EOL's, I would suggest that every now and again, naughty Instructors (those who paired up for some SCT flew all these EOL's with the fuel cut off lever all the way back which replicated a total engine failure and a pleasure to fly because of the lack of that high whine turbine in your ears. Again being conservative, let's make it less than 10% of all my EOL's carried out like this, shall we = 200 full on EOL's?
So, yes I'm proud to declare that I have carried out hundreds of real engine out landings in my life and not bent one a/c.
Next question buddy?
Oh - PS:Glad to see you have fallen into line vis a vie the Collective and then the cyclic - good boy.
PPS: Take note of this drubbing you are getting from others - only yourself to blame old boy. Take it on the chin and move on.......I do
It's called humbleness.
Meanwhile on planet Earth:
I got to thinking about these EOL's I used to do:
I used to do EOL's at the end of every trip with my student (other than the bleedin obvious like taxiing back from IF etc). But there were dedicated EOL trips (I think they were "D20" and "D21 low level EOL's") I did on average one of each of these every week. Each trip usually comprised maybe 10+ EOL's dependent on student capabilities. So at a conservative estimate that was 20 a week minimum for say 20 weeks a year (the other times were other non GFP sorties). Tha makes 400 EOL's a year. A tour in the RN is only 2 years, so 800 EOL's. Three tours in my 17yrs = 2400 EOL's. Now let's all agree that these "EOL's" as I call them are not really EOL's in Peter Gillies dictionary because the engine stayed at FI throughout and even if one did complete the exercise by landing on the ground with "no engine" there was engine drag in there somewhere - he is quite right about that. But you have to agree as I am sure you must have done similar (though not to the same excessive numbers - in the Army with the Mk1) on the day of the race there is absolutely no room for error.
Now - of those 2400+ EOL's, I would suggest that every now and again, naughty Instructors (those who paired up for some SCT flew all these EOL's with the fuel cut off lever all the way back which replicated a total engine failure and a pleasure to fly because of the lack of that high whine turbine in your ears. Again being conservative, let's make it less than 10% of all my EOL's carried out like this, shall we = 200 full on EOL's?
So, yes I'm proud to declare that I have carried out hundreds of real engine out landings in my life and not bent one a/c.
Next question buddy?
Oh - PS:Glad to see you have fallen into line vis a vie the Collective and then the cyclic - good boy.
PPS: Take note of this drubbing you are getting from others - only yourself to blame old boy. Take it on the chin and move on.......I do
It's called humbleness.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TC - thank you for your nice informative post. When I went through Wallop we did less SEOL (Simulated cos engine at idle) than we should have done because the ground was frozen and the skid shoes were AOG.
I think you have misunderstood my postings and maybe that is my fault but of course, lever down always followed by flare. The fancy variations low evel down wind.......well nice in training. Not sure how it migrates to reality.
As for the drubbing. Thanks for the advice but my position stands.
DB
I think you have misunderstood my postings and maybe that is my fault but of course, lever down always followed by flare. The fancy variations low evel down wind.......well nice in training. Not sure how it migrates to reality.
As for the drubbing. Thanks for the advice but my position stands.
DB
HC.....it does not matter how it "started"....what is important is bringing it to a close.
DB,
I am no more loyal to Sikorsky than i am any other builder of Helicopters.
I never worked for SA, own no SA Stock, and am not flying any SA aircraft and am not employed by a company that does.
We both know that.
Can you say the same?
This is not about SA vice EC vice Bell vice AW.....but about treating each other with some respect. It is odd that the most vocal are the ones that perceive a slight even when it really wasn't there.
I see some very large Chips on some Shoulders that really do need to removed.
Reaction time.....simply stated.....should be as short as possible commensurate with applying the best or least the least harmful response that goes towards improving the situation.
As to the RFM.....who do you think has the most input on the content of the RFM? Want some hints about who here has been a Subject Matter Expert on at least one if not more than one RFM?
Your reading of Dixon's posts differ greatly from mine. No where did he suggest what you say is correct. He provided the results of empirical data that shows the range at which RPM could be recovered and in no way opined that operating at ranges lower than published in the RFM was acceptable.
Does it not make sense to you that we are given safe limits that are greater than the actual minimum limits? That should not be a difficult concept to understand. That a "thinking" person would understand the one set of limits afforded a "safe" range for normal operations and the other would not is also an easy concept to grasp or at least I thought so until recently.
Perhaps the next time you run into some EC Rotor Design Engineers......you have a chat with them about this topic with them and see what they have to say. You might find they are pretty much in line with the SA guys....or the Bell guys....or the AW guys.
One thing for sure....having had conversations with Lappos....I KNOW he knows far more than i ever dreamed about when it comes to how Helicopters are designed, built, and tested. Likewise, Brother Dixon spent a great many Years doing Test work and flew aircraft well outside the "Normal Limitations" as that was how they arrived at what those Limitations needed to be.
It is a giant step from reading about it....talking about it.....and by God doing it!
I will listen to them that have done it....thank you.
DB,
I am no more loyal to Sikorsky than i am any other builder of Helicopters.
I never worked for SA, own no SA Stock, and am not flying any SA aircraft and am not employed by a company that does.
We both know that.
Can you say the same?
This is not about SA vice EC vice Bell vice AW.....but about treating each other with some respect. It is odd that the most vocal are the ones that perceive a slight even when it really wasn't there.
I see some very large Chips on some Shoulders that really do need to removed.
Reaction time.....simply stated.....should be as short as possible commensurate with applying the best or least the least harmful response that goes towards improving the situation.
As to the RFM.....who do you think has the most input on the content of the RFM? Want some hints about who here has been a Subject Matter Expert on at least one if not more than one RFM?
Your reading of Dixon's posts differ greatly from mine. No where did he suggest what you say is correct. He provided the results of empirical data that shows the range at which RPM could be recovered and in no way opined that operating at ranges lower than published in the RFM was acceptable.
Does it not make sense to you that we are given safe limits that are greater than the actual minimum limits? That should not be a difficult concept to understand. That a "thinking" person would understand the one set of limits afforded a "safe" range for normal operations and the other would not is also an easy concept to grasp or at least I thought so until recently.
Perhaps the next time you run into some EC Rotor Design Engineers......you have a chat with them about this topic with them and see what they have to say. You might find they are pretty much in line with the SA guys....or the Bell guys....or the AW guys.
One thing for sure....having had conversations with Lappos....I KNOW he knows far more than i ever dreamed about when it comes to how Helicopters are designed, built, and tested. Likewise, Brother Dixon spent a great many Years doing Test work and flew aircraft well outside the "Normal Limitations" as that was how they arrived at what those Limitations needed to be.
It is a giant step from reading about it....talking about it.....and by God doing it!
I will listen to them that have done it....thank you.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
SAS - sorry bud but its not going to be that easy!!
Peter Gillies
STATEMENT - stated that the unrecoverable NR happens at a certain value from nominal.
MOTIVATION - to help pilots realise just how little time available and the best source of energy to recover - the flare. He hopes this might save someone's life.
Test Pilots
STATEMENT - The Test pilots pop up to discredit Peters claim and state that almost twice as much time is available and back up this claim with lots of data. Read JDs post again. It specifically states Peter is wrong!
MOTIVATION
?????
This has noting to do with EC or SK. Its about misinformation.
DB
PS - I respect the work that the Test Pilots do but maybe their world should never be fully visible to us in Industry. The bit we need is in the RFM. What bothered me most about the posts was the motivation behind them!! The could have said "Hey we tests pilots fully agree with Peter. Time is short so get the lever down and flare if you can to get your NR back. Its nasty at the bottom of the NR envelope"......but they did not say this SAS did they!!
Peter Gillies
STATEMENT - stated that the unrecoverable NR happens at a certain value from nominal.
MOTIVATION - to help pilots realise just how little time available and the best source of energy to recover - the flare. He hopes this might save someone's life.
Test Pilots
STATEMENT - The Test pilots pop up to discredit Peters claim and state that almost twice as much time is available and back up this claim with lots of data. Read JDs post again. It specifically states Peter is wrong!
MOTIVATION
?????
This has noting to do with EC or SK. Its about misinformation.
DB
PS - I respect the work that the Test Pilots do but maybe their world should never be fully visible to us in Industry. The bit we need is in the RFM. What bothered me most about the posts was the motivation behind them!! The could have said "Hey we tests pilots fully agree with Peter. Time is short so get the lever down and flare if you can to get your NR back. Its nasty at the bottom of the NR envelope"......but they did not say this SAS did they!!
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 16th Dec 2013 at 14:29.
If Peter says 85% and Test Data says 60-70%....which is correct?
If One embraces Peter's number as being the "safe" limit....although higher than the actual limit.....then that is fine as it provides for improved safety.
If One accepts the lower range....but embraces Peter's number....who is hurt?
If One accepts the lower range and then attempts to operate at that number....who is being the Silly Boy?
Again....there was no way to interpret what was said as encouraging using the lower range of Rotor RPM.
Why is it you are hung up over this?
You did make the statement that 8 or 10 prospective Instructors failed their Employment Check Rides because they did not use an Aft Cyclic Input. You did not respond to my questions about the conditions of that event for each of them to include the REACTION TIME and other factors that may have explained their failure to succeed in recovering from the Dual Engine failure you initiated. Simply not moving the Cyclic Aft cannot all by itself cause such catastrophic reactions by the aircraft. It is the "Absolute" certainty in statements made by some there that is the problem....not the general concept of using all the flight controls to trade energy for RPM.
The way I am reading all this....is you embrace the Notion that the Cyclic MUST be moved Aft upon any loss of Main Rotor RPM due to an engine failure or other drive to the Rotor System......and that what others have said challenges that firm hard position you staked out early on.
The bulk of the discussion has been that moving the cyclic aft to use some energy from the Rotor System provided by Airspeed is a good thing. No one is arguing against that. A lot of us are pointing out that there are many situations where that hard fast rule does not apply...does not provide any noticeable increase in Rotor RPM. That directly challenges your hard and fast position.
What we all agree upon is Reaction Time is the most important factor in the successful Recovery of Main Rotor RPM post loss of Engine Drive to the MGB. Second most important is getting the Collective well down....then....followed by use of Cyclic as appropriate.
It cannot be any other sequence of priorities.....if you do not respond that is the end of it.
If you do not get the Collective down to reduce the rate of decay of the Rotor System....then anything else you do will only have a temporary effect.
The secret is to minimize the Loss of RPM and generate as much driving force as possible....which can also include turns as well as decelerating.
Peter did us a service by raising the awareness of this important facet of Helicopter flying but his posts are not the absolute last word on the matter. His concept is quite valid and effective but as in all things Helicopter there is much more to it than his posts have shown.
If One embraces Peter's number as being the "safe" limit....although higher than the actual limit.....then that is fine as it provides for improved safety.
If One accepts the lower range....but embraces Peter's number....who is hurt?
If One accepts the lower range and then attempts to operate at that number....who is being the Silly Boy?
Again....there was no way to interpret what was said as encouraging using the lower range of Rotor RPM.
Why is it you are hung up over this?
You did make the statement that 8 or 10 prospective Instructors failed their Employment Check Rides because they did not use an Aft Cyclic Input. You did not respond to my questions about the conditions of that event for each of them to include the REACTION TIME and other factors that may have explained their failure to succeed in recovering from the Dual Engine failure you initiated. Simply not moving the Cyclic Aft cannot all by itself cause such catastrophic reactions by the aircraft. It is the "Absolute" certainty in statements made by some there that is the problem....not the general concept of using all the flight controls to trade energy for RPM.
The way I am reading all this....is you embrace the Notion that the Cyclic MUST be moved Aft upon any loss of Main Rotor RPM due to an engine failure or other drive to the Rotor System......and that what others have said challenges that firm hard position you staked out early on.
The bulk of the discussion has been that moving the cyclic aft to use some energy from the Rotor System provided by Airspeed is a good thing. No one is arguing against that. A lot of us are pointing out that there are many situations where that hard fast rule does not apply...does not provide any noticeable increase in Rotor RPM. That directly challenges your hard and fast position.
What we all agree upon is Reaction Time is the most important factor in the successful Recovery of Main Rotor RPM post loss of Engine Drive to the MGB. Second most important is getting the Collective well down....then....followed by use of Cyclic as appropriate.
It cannot be any other sequence of priorities.....if you do not respond that is the end of it.
If you do not get the Collective down to reduce the rate of decay of the Rotor System....then anything else you do will only have a temporary effect.
The secret is to minimize the Loss of RPM and generate as much driving force as possible....which can also include turns as well as decelerating.
Peter did us a service by raising the awareness of this important facet of Helicopter flying but his posts are not the absolute last word on the matter. His concept is quite valid and effective but as in all things Helicopter there is much more to it than his posts have shown.