Entering autos: discussion split from Glasgow crash thread
Chief Bottle Washer
What is it Nick! You can’t accept that you’re a test pilot/engineer and Sikorsky salesman and have minimal experience in bush work with light and medium helicopters. Which constitutes the biggest part of the industry numerically I guess.
You have a tremendous knowledge about the flight test, development and theory end of this business and I won’t get into a head-butting contest with you in your specialized arena. I’d be taking a knife to a gunfight!
But you are not the all-knowing guru in all aspects of this business, regardless of the lavish praise placed on you by many. I don’t think you have any idea what it’s like for most guys working in the less rarefied atmosphere.
I’d like to know when was the last time you worked a machine in the typical end user mode. Excluding military and offshore clients?
You have a tremendous knowledge about the flight test, development and theory end of this business and I won’t get into a head-butting contest with you in your specialized arena. I’d be taking a knife to a gunfight!
But you are not the all-knowing guru in all aspects of this business, regardless of the lavish praise placed on you by many. I don’t think you have any idea what it’s like for most guys working in the less rarefied atmosphere.
I’d like to know when was the last time you worked a machine in the typical end user mode. Excluding military and offshore clients?
He does know what he is talking about as an all round helicopter pilot and good egg.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
Senior Pilot
I know much about Nick Lappos and have shown him the respect he has earned in his field of expertise as a high flying test engineer. That does not give him the right to insult me. I have only a little less overall experience than Nick in terms of years albeit in the simple working arena, and have earned my right to an opinion! Or is that unreasonable of me.
I hold to my position that Nick has little experience in the 'workaday' world of helicopter operations at the typical level as his comments over the years reveal this. I did not try to disrespect his professional standing in general.
But His life has been spent in a different arena!
Perhaps grander in many respects, but the proof that infallibility has no favorites, look at the last video...
I know much about Nick Lappos and have shown him the respect he has earned in his field of expertise as a high flying test engineer. That does not give him the right to insult me. I have only a little less overall experience than Nick in terms of years albeit in the simple working arena, and have earned my right to an opinion! Or is that unreasonable of me.
I hold to my position that Nick has little experience in the 'workaday' world of helicopter operations at the typical level as his comments over the years reveal this. I did not try to disrespect his professional standing in general.
But His life has been spent in a different arena!
Perhaps grander in many respects, but the proof that infallibility has no favorites, look at the last video...
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFool
I used to do that in my Enstrom. No problem.
Impressive but I'm guessing the number of people who can do this reliably is about as tiny as the margin for error is
Chief Bottle Washer
170'
I see nothing insulting in what Nick posted. I suggest you've either misread his post or seen something that I haven't.
I see nothing insulting in what Nick posted. I suggest you've either misread his post or seen something that I haven't.
If you visit Penticton BC. You will find hovering autos from 100 to 150' performed all day long in Bell 206's.Zero forward airspeed, just a vertical hovering auto.
But anyway, I stand by my post. NL has a lot of good points but, just like everyone else, he isn't perfect. It is always dangerous to put total and unquestioning faith in another's opinion.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
Senior Pilot...
Nick's a big boy and more than capable of defending himself.
Is it the role of a moderator to defend his friends? I thought you were supposed to be an impartial bystander simply maintaining a pre-determined level of decorum within the forum. Nick has plenty of support from many fans on this site.Surely you could at least use a different user name to support your buddy and display your feelings as a regular poster, rather than add unfair weight to your thoughts as an Official of the website!
As for your comment of yours regarding Nicks previous experience in 'workaday' operations. He's been in 'flight test' since 1973 according to the latest Bio, so I'm guessing that 'workaday' experience is passed it's shelf life by now? Although I still have trouble putting driving a snake in the 'workaday' world?
A final point. I challenged Nick on one issue, it has morphed into an apparent hatred I must have for Nick, and that's not the case.
I have given him huge credit where huge credit is due in 'flight test' and high level formulae, but argue about his being out of touch with end users at my level. My level being heavily populated with older airframes often driven by older pilots who spend a lot of time in the HV diagram and we do know what we're doing (much of the time)
I'm superstitious by nature so I'm going to hang it up now as I just realized that I have sim Monday and then a 12 hour flight to go hang out in the HV for 30 days again. Luck might have it that I get a double flameout at 200' and **** up the recovery attempt, which would give you and Nick the biggest 'Gotcha' of all time... so that's all from me!
As far as I'm concerned, No hard feelings!
ps: HC posted while I was writing, it wasn't a set-up re your impartiality!
Nick's a big boy and more than capable of defending himself.
Is it the role of a moderator to defend his friends? I thought you were supposed to be an impartial bystander simply maintaining a pre-determined level of decorum within the forum. Nick has plenty of support from many fans on this site.Surely you could at least use a different user name to support your buddy and display your feelings as a regular poster, rather than add unfair weight to your thoughts as an Official of the website!
As for your comment of yours regarding Nicks previous experience in 'workaday' operations. He's been in 'flight test' since 1973 according to the latest Bio, so I'm guessing that 'workaday' experience is passed it's shelf life by now? Although I still have trouble putting driving a snake in the 'workaday' world?
A final point. I challenged Nick on one issue, it has morphed into an apparent hatred I must have for Nick, and that's not the case.
I have given him huge credit where huge credit is due in 'flight test' and high level formulae, but argue about his being out of touch with end users at my level. My level being heavily populated with older airframes often driven by older pilots who spend a lot of time in the HV diagram and we do know what we're doing (much of the time)
I'm superstitious by nature so I'm going to hang it up now as I just realized that I have sim Monday and then a 12 hour flight to go hang out in the HV for 30 days again. Luck might have it that I get a double flameout at 200' and **** up the recovery attempt, which would give you and Nick the biggest 'Gotcha' of all time... so that's all from me!
As far as I'm concerned, No hard feelings!
ps: HC posted while I was writing, it wasn't a set-up re your impartiality!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
170's posts have been reasoned and moderate and valuable, whether you agree with him or not.
Nick Lappos' post was informative but could well be read as belligerent and demeaning, in anyones language, and this has detracted from what is otherwise a very valuable contribution.
I for one want both these contributors to continue, but in a civil discussion that contributes to this important topic.
Senior Pilot is not helping, this time - can he please steer this back on topic?
Nick Lappos' post was informative but could well be read as belligerent and demeaning, in anyones language, and this has detracted from what is otherwise a very valuable contribution.
I for one want both these contributors to continue, but in a civil discussion that contributes to this important topic.
Senior Pilot is not helping, this time - can he please steer this back on topic?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter Safety
As a lay person with regard to helicopter flight, what I take from all these discussions is that helicopter flying is inherently dangerous when hovering below 6-700 feet and flying at slow or very high speeds when close to the ground. Pretty much any rescue operation, surveillance or low level lifting work involves flying for extended periods within the performance avoidance curves.
The concept of helicopters seems to have been sold to the general public on their ability to hover, fly slowly and great manouverability together with the ability to drift to the ground like thistledown using autorotation in the event that things go badly wrong at any time.
It seems that the time has come when we should really be considering airships for these tasks since they seem to be capable of similar flight roles and when filled with helium are inherently safer. This is especially applicable over populated areas.
Clearly helicopters are still needed, for example, by the military and search and rescue in the teeth of a North Atlantic gale, but are we using the right tool for the job now that possibly better and eventually cheaper alternatives could be manufactured?
The concept of helicopters seems to have been sold to the general public on their ability to hover, fly slowly and great manouverability together with the ability to drift to the ground like thistledown using autorotation in the event that things go badly wrong at any time.
It seems that the time has come when we should really be considering airships for these tasks since they seem to be capable of similar flight roles and when filled with helium are inherently safer. This is especially applicable over populated areas.
Clearly helicopters are still needed, for example, by the military and search and rescue in the teeth of a North Atlantic gale, but are we using the right tool for the job now that possibly better and eventually cheaper alternatives could be manufactured?
Helicopters only have an "avoid curve" if they are either single engined, or twin engined above a certain weight. Therefore the answer is to fly twins at an appropriate weight which, with some modern types, can be close to max all up weight.
Alternatively, consider just how much risk there is of a gas turbine engine failure. For aerial work over non-congested areas it is probably better to spend the money on top notch maintenance, HUMS etc rather than on the extra cost of a twin. After all, if you eliminate any risk from an engine failure, helicopters and their pilots have a habit of finding alternative ways to crash.
Airships have been around for a long time. If it were advantageous to use them, I sure that would happen. They are not used in these roles for a good reason.
Alternatively, consider just how much risk there is of a gas turbine engine failure. For aerial work over non-congested areas it is probably better to spend the money on top notch maintenance, HUMS etc rather than on the extra cost of a twin. After all, if you eliminate any risk from an engine failure, helicopters and their pilots have a habit of finding alternative ways to crash.
Airships have been around for a long time. If it were advantageous to use them, I sure that would happen. They are not used in these roles for a good reason.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand...
People are describing cyclic back as 'flare' as though it's an exponentially decaying manoeuvre.
I see it as 'gybe'. Sailors will recognise this as a quick change of sail direction across the wind. In this case it is a movement of the rotor disc leading edge from below to above the slipstream.
By suddenly raising the front edge of the rotor disc you get the slipstream flowing UP through the disc, a necessary stage in approaching autorotation if you were in powered forward flight.
henry_crun
dull old engineer
People are describing cyclic back as 'flare' as though it's an exponentially decaying manoeuvre.
I see it as 'gybe'. Sailors will recognise this as a quick change of sail direction across the wind. In this case it is a movement of the rotor disc leading edge from below to above the slipstream.
By suddenly raising the front edge of the rotor disc you get the slipstream flowing UP through the disc, a necessary stage in approaching autorotation if you were in powered forward flight.
henry_crun
dull old engineer
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airships!
The idea of a quick-reaction airship is an odd one.
The chances of launching airships in Glasgow's windy weather more than 20% of the time is also of concern.
Apologies if that seemed brusque - no offence to raising the idea of airships, just the usefulness of airships.
I contend that the features of loitering airships over the tropical pacific in WWII are especially different from those desired by coppers to whizz about over Glasgow. The US Navy abandoned airships 50 years ago, presumably for good reason.
The criminal community is probably wise enough to run and hide on the airship-shadow side of a building, knowing they'd have minutes not seconds before it moved to bring them back into view, especially if it was to their east, given the prevailing winds.
Instances of arson on parked police helicopters suggest that they are a major impediment to criminals. I suspect that an airship would have less chance of being targeted for malicious damage on the ground.
The chances of launching airships in Glasgow's windy weather more than 20% of the time is also of concern.
Apologies if that seemed brusque - no offence to raising the idea of airships, just the usefulness of airships.
I contend that the features of loitering airships over the tropical pacific in WWII are especially different from those desired by coppers to whizz about over Glasgow. The US Navy abandoned airships 50 years ago, presumably for good reason.
The criminal community is probably wise enough to run and hide on the airship-shadow side of a building, knowing they'd have minutes not seconds before it moved to bring them back into view, especially if it was to their east, given the prevailing winds.
Instances of arson on parked police helicopters suggest that they are a major impediment to criminals. I suspect that an airship would have less chance of being targeted for malicious damage on the ground.
Last edited by awblain; 15th Dec 2013 at 09:18. Reason: ettiquette?
Ah....but with an Airship cruising 60-80 Knots and an endurance of a couple of days....quick response is a moot point. The Craft is in the air already....and has been for a day or so.
Some folks need to remember the etiquette in this parlor......play the ball folks.....not the player.
We all have contributions to make....even if we do not always agree.
USN K model Blimp (WWII Tecnhology)
Performance
Maximum speed: 78 mph (125 km/h)
Cruise speed: 58 mph (93 km/h)
Range: 2,205 miles (3,537 km)
Endurance: 38 hours 12 min
Some folks need to remember the etiquette in this parlor......play the ball folks.....not the player.
We all have contributions to make....even if we do not always agree.
USN K model Blimp (WWII Tecnhology)
Performance
Maximum speed: 78 mph (125 km/h)
Cruise speed: 58 mph (93 km/h)
Range: 2,205 miles (3,537 km)
Endurance: 38 hours 12 min
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were we talking about opinions, 170', it would be interesting, but we are talking about facts. I respect those who must fly into the H-V avoid area (perhaps such as you - we cant know for sure because you do not identify yourself) but that doesn't change the lethality of an engine failure in that region.
The video is of a constant attitude EOL, not a vertical zero airspeed one.
It had been taught for many years in the Brit Mil and is a perfectly normal exercise. It is flown at 30 -35 kts until the last 100 feet or so when the attitude is maintained (hence the name constant attitude) and then a check with the lever at about 30' followed by the cushion at about 5'.
It is not, however, even slightly representative of a vertical, zero airspeed EOL from a high hover where the RoD would be much, much higher and that technique would certainly bend the aircraft very badly.
It had been taught for many years in the Brit Mil and is a perfectly normal exercise. It is flown at 30 -35 kts until the last 100 feet or so when the attitude is maintained (hence the name constant attitude) and then a check with the lever at about 30' followed by the cushion at about 5'.
It is not, however, even slightly representative of a vertical, zero airspeed EOL from a high hover where the RoD would be much, much higher and that technique would certainly bend the aircraft very badly.
From my RFM;
1. Maintain Heading and Attitude control
2. Collective-Adjust
3. Cyclic - Adjust to obtain desired autorotative AIRSPEED (in capitals)
4. Attempt restart
5. Throttle closed
6. Fuel off
7. Flare to lose airspeed
8. Apply collective to cushion landing
9. Shutdown
1. Maintain Heading and Attitude control
2. Collective-Adjust
3. Cyclic - Adjust to obtain desired autorotative AIRSPEED (in capitals)
4. Attempt restart
5. Throttle closed
6. Fuel off
7. Flare to lose airspeed
8. Apply collective to cushion landing
9. Shutdown
Lethality seems a strong word. An engine failure in the avoid curve means you are going to hit harder than the test pilot was prepared to accept. That may mean you get a sore back, may mean you damage the helicopter. Yes it may mean you die if you are well into it, but lethality is certainly not assured.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
Ok Nick…You can have the last word on this - immediately after this last post ;-)
It’s deteriorated into a very personal exchange and my participation serves no further purpose. I have said clearly that hovering autos are performed regularly from within the HV diagram and you cry bull**** on that. Nobody has jumped in to support me on this, and at the time I went thru that particular course cellphone cameras weren’t around and I have no video. So unless someone else jumps in to support my claim. You win!
For the record, we’re not talking about operational weights, nor unexpected failures. It’s an engine out drill that’s been fully briefed. But your blanket statement didn’t refer to operational weights either.
The last comment :
(perhaps such as you - we can’t know for sure because you do not identify yourself) seems that now you’re taking me to task for - posting anonymously on an anonymous forum
I’m fairly sure that you don’t believe that Crab-SASless-Heli-Comparator-TC et al are given names. So I can only think it’s a cheap shot to discredit me. As I said in a previous post. I would welcome a closed forum on proon where people provide bona fides before posting.
That really is my final comment for this go-around…
It’s deteriorated into a very personal exchange and my participation serves no further purpose. I have said clearly that hovering autos are performed regularly from within the HV diagram and you cry bull**** on that. Nobody has jumped in to support me on this, and at the time I went thru that particular course cellphone cameras weren’t around and I have no video. So unless someone else jumps in to support my claim. You win!
For the record, we’re not talking about operational weights, nor unexpected failures. It’s an engine out drill that’s been fully briefed. But your blanket statement didn’t refer to operational weights either.
The last comment :
(perhaps such as you - we can’t know for sure because you do not identify yourself) seems that now you’re taking me to task for - posting anonymously on an anonymous forum
I’m fairly sure that you don’t believe that Crab-SASless-Heli-Comparator-TC et al are given names. So I can only think it’s a cheap shot to discredit me. As I said in a previous post. I would welcome a closed forum on proon where people provide bona fides before posting.
That really is my final comment for this go-around…
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Nick I do not know you and have never met you but I think I would like to.
Big respect for 170' earning his living doing things that leave very little margin for error.
I left SEH flying a long time back and when asked by friends why I do not fly privately (on my wages only a SEH is feasible), I simply say "I will probably kill myself because those necessary skills, and courage to use them, have long gone"
I remember doing my first big twin Type Rating. The beautiful and forgiving S61. Training in the old SIM in ABZ and stressing out my Instructor by generally panicking and doing things far too quickly as he slowly and surely weaned me from my inappropriate SEH habits.
However, some things never change, like physics and the theory of rotorcraft flight. Therefore I am somewhat dumbfounded by the bizarre reaction some Rotorheads have to the most simple of concepts.
NR when lost, only comes back by trading energy. The best source of energy is airspeed. In the OGE low speed hover, the immediate need is airspeed to avoid landing heavy. Nicks HoV curves are exactly what this is about so why do some posters get so upset with this. We all know it!!
For MEH pilots like me, the Glasgow crash may prove to be a critical point on how we view flight in the sticky parts of the envelope and in particular, our continued training schedule to develop fully those skills and instincts we may all need for when the 10 to the minus 9 event occurs.
A while back I did a lot of police flying in BO105s and AS355s, spending a lot of time in the OGE hover. I never really considered a double flameout as a real possibility. I don't think we were taught to consider it, rather relying heavily on the OEI concept and escape routes should one donkey stop.
I had two power losses in a BO105 over Leeds at night. The first was caused by my inadvertent beeping down of RRPM, while all time wondering why the NITESUN was not moving. (Both identical coolie hats side by side on the collective).
The second was caused by my large Bobby moving his helmeted head back, fitted a few days prior with a hard visor cover, neatly slotting number 1 power lever into the idle gate while I was keeping station on the PURPs through my RH window.
In both cases I vividly remember the poor little 105, plummeting (P&J readers know this word) towards the houses with me blubbering something like WTF!! and simply not comprehending what was happening. Probably a full 5-10 seconds in both cases before I eventually did the right thing.
(For the second case.....thank you Eric, wherever you are for eventually pointing to the little red lever and issuing those immortal words "Is owt tae dooo wie thar lever" as I scraped across the rooftops at VTOSS.)
Good times spent in blissful ignorance of the probable true horrors that faced poor Dave and his crew that night.
DB
Big respect for 170' earning his living doing things that leave very little margin for error.
I left SEH flying a long time back and when asked by friends why I do not fly privately (on my wages only a SEH is feasible), I simply say "I will probably kill myself because those necessary skills, and courage to use them, have long gone"
I remember doing my first big twin Type Rating. The beautiful and forgiving S61. Training in the old SIM in ABZ and stressing out my Instructor by generally panicking and doing things far too quickly as he slowly and surely weaned me from my inappropriate SEH habits.
However, some things never change, like physics and the theory of rotorcraft flight. Therefore I am somewhat dumbfounded by the bizarre reaction some Rotorheads have to the most simple of concepts.
NR when lost, only comes back by trading energy. The best source of energy is airspeed. In the OGE low speed hover, the immediate need is airspeed to avoid landing heavy. Nicks HoV curves are exactly what this is about so why do some posters get so upset with this. We all know it!!
For MEH pilots like me, the Glasgow crash may prove to be a critical point on how we view flight in the sticky parts of the envelope and in particular, our continued training schedule to develop fully those skills and instincts we may all need for when the 10 to the minus 9 event occurs.
A while back I did a lot of police flying in BO105s and AS355s, spending a lot of time in the OGE hover. I never really considered a double flameout as a real possibility. I don't think we were taught to consider it, rather relying heavily on the OEI concept and escape routes should one donkey stop.
I had two power losses in a BO105 over Leeds at night. The first was caused by my inadvertent beeping down of RRPM, while all time wondering why the NITESUN was not moving. (Both identical coolie hats side by side on the collective).
The second was caused by my large Bobby moving his helmeted head back, fitted a few days prior with a hard visor cover, neatly slotting number 1 power lever into the idle gate while I was keeping station on the PURPs through my RH window.
In both cases I vividly remember the poor little 105, plummeting (P&J readers know this word) towards the houses with me blubbering something like WTF!! and simply not comprehending what was happening. Probably a full 5-10 seconds in both cases before I eventually did the right thing.
(For the second case.....thank you Eric, wherever you are for eventually pointing to the little red lever and issuing those immortal words "Is owt tae dooo wie thar lever" as I scraped across the rooftops at VTOSS.)
Good times spent in blissful ignorance of the probable true horrors that faced poor Dave and his crew that night.
DB