Emergency landing
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Arnie M;
SilsoeSid ... you remind me of the guy who goes to the airport and opens his hangar door.
The rule books are stacked to the ceiling but there are no aircraft
SilsoeSid ... you remind me of the guy who goes to the airport and opens his hangar door.
The rule books are stacked to the ceiling but there are no aircraft
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Age: 72
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC ..... I thought you were dead !!! I can only imagine that you were a sub standard Mil pilot or that now in your old age your reactions are very slow If you have actually done throttle chops at v low level you may understand ...... You are aware that when you fly ...you just fly the aircraft and react to changes of pitch etc automatically . You don't actually need to know you have had a failure , no need to drop collective with lightening reflexes . You just flare ....as much as you need to in order to keep height . If you would like a lesson from me I'm quite happy to teach you . Off course being a military God you probably never did crop dusting and never learnt the art of really low level . The crop dusting pilots on here could teach you a few things about HV curve and what's possible as they are flying in it all day long
Nigel - my dear old loved one. Many moons ago pprune did this conversation to death. (dead mans curve).
I've carried out well in excess of 2500 autos of which 1500 were engine offs in a single, atleast half were in the 100 - 200' band, many were at low speed, some in excess of 100+ kts.
None were carried out knowingly inside the dead mans curve.
And the reason for that is the military actually pay attention to what the test pilots say when they devise these charts. We 'assume' they are paid to fly the a/c close to the edge and occasionally beyond. We even flew with them on occasion to further understand their reasoning.
Of course civvies don't get these experiences for obvious reasons. Test pilots don't grow on trees. Test pilots don't invent charts like this for a laugh.
This curve advises the operator of the helicopter that given an average pilot on an average day with average reactions in nil wind - should the donk stop, the odds are stacked against him/her and either the helicopter will strike the ground causing damage (heavy landing) and or everything in between up to killing the pilot. Statistics are littered with these results.
There are several operators out there who LIVE inside the HVC. I recall having a conversation with a vet from this industry offline - as a result of our online debate. He has spent most of his professional life living inside the curve. And he is still alive, god bless.
It's not to say that it is a forbidden - no-go zone. It's not to say it will kill you every time, it is suggesting that when the donk stops and the pilot is anything OTHER than sh*t hot - he/she will come a cropper.
Apart from the fact that if an aviation lawyer found out you were operating inside this zone when the lights went out - your claim might look shakey,
people like you must wake up and smell the coffee.
Just because you have flown inside the HVC dozens of times without a mishap, doesn't mean to say you are safe. You are not safe Nigelh please remember that and joking aside - have a long hard think about it when you have a quiet moment (and I know you will). Your bravado about your lightning quick reactions/second nature/instinctive actions will not prevent you from coming a cropper one day - believe me.
For all other civvies who don't court this chart or aren't familiar with the machinations of it. Take a long hard look at the curve - It's NOT mandatory, it is advisory (based on considerable test data and experimentation by people far more capable than you will ever be )look at your flying behaviour and compare. Do you often fly inside the curve (take off, landing and low level) or with just a small tweak to your flight path and speeds - do you fly just outside it.
The difference could mean avoiding a hefty insurance claim or worse still - killing your family if they are onboard when the donk stops and you happen to be inside the curve at the time. Dramatic enough for you!
And please, Nigel those of us who know you, know you are a very capable helicopter pilot - please bear in mind that when you speak on here - some actually listen, so let's cut the crap and provide solid feedback so they can learn from it.
I've carried out well in excess of 2500 autos of which 1500 were engine offs in a single, atleast half were in the 100 - 200' band, many were at low speed, some in excess of 100+ kts.
None were carried out knowingly inside the dead mans curve.
And the reason for that is the military actually pay attention to what the test pilots say when they devise these charts. We 'assume' they are paid to fly the a/c close to the edge and occasionally beyond. We even flew with them on occasion to further understand their reasoning.
Of course civvies don't get these experiences for obvious reasons. Test pilots don't grow on trees. Test pilots don't invent charts like this for a laugh.
This curve advises the operator of the helicopter that given an average pilot on an average day with average reactions in nil wind - should the donk stop, the odds are stacked against him/her and either the helicopter will strike the ground causing damage (heavy landing) and or everything in between up to killing the pilot. Statistics are littered with these results.
There are several operators out there who LIVE inside the HVC. I recall having a conversation with a vet from this industry offline - as a result of our online debate. He has spent most of his professional life living inside the curve. And he is still alive, god bless.
It's not to say that it is a forbidden - no-go zone. It's not to say it will kill you every time, it is suggesting that when the donk stops and the pilot is anything OTHER than sh*t hot - he/she will come a cropper.
Apart from the fact that if an aviation lawyer found out you were operating inside this zone when the lights went out - your claim might look shakey,
people like you must wake up and smell the coffee.
Just because you have flown inside the HVC dozens of times without a mishap, doesn't mean to say you are safe. You are not safe Nigelh please remember that and joking aside - have a long hard think about it when you have a quiet moment (and I know you will). Your bravado about your lightning quick reactions/second nature/instinctive actions will not prevent you from coming a cropper one day - believe me.
For all other civvies who don't court this chart or aren't familiar with the machinations of it. Take a long hard look at the curve - It's NOT mandatory, it is advisory (based on considerable test data and experimentation by people far more capable than you will ever be )look at your flying behaviour and compare. Do you often fly inside the curve (take off, landing and low level) or with just a small tweak to your flight path and speeds - do you fly just outside it.
The difference could mean avoiding a hefty insurance claim or worse still - killing your family if they are onboard when the donk stops and you happen to be inside the curve at the time. Dramatic enough for you!
And please, Nigel those of us who know you, know you are a very capable helicopter pilot - please bear in mind that when you speak on here - some actually listen, so let's cut the crap and provide solid feedback so they can learn from it.
TC
A superb post but just bear in mind we all have to go into the avoid curve ( dead mans curve, height velocity diagram, call it what you will) for many reasons.
Training for vertical take off and landing for instance with a ppl. Is it unsafe to go into the avoid curve ? Well like everything in life it is down to what we now call threat and error management or what is better called airmanship or perhaps better still common sense. Realistically the pilot is more likely to cock up the landing or take off in a vertical take off scenario than for the engine to actually stop. It is rare these days for engines to stop, biggest reason is running out of fuel !
At work I spend most of my day in the avoid curve lifting with a 50 ft line on the heli. Reason, it is safer for the ground crew and much quicker to hook 6 bags on to a carousel then on to a belly hook, ironically especially if the donk does give up !
I think with the standards of training these days where students aren't even taught to do EOL's to the ground let alone autos from close / inside the avoid curve most have no idea of the threats of operating inside the curve. Thus they don't actually realise the problems they are putting themselves in as they have a " it won't happen to me scenario as my instructor never showed me"
You have had the luxury like some of having had military training, not sure you have experienced the quality of training on the civvy side but I am afraid it can be woeful
A superb post but just bear in mind we all have to go into the avoid curve ( dead mans curve, height velocity diagram, call it what you will) for many reasons.
Training for vertical take off and landing for instance with a ppl. Is it unsafe to go into the avoid curve ? Well like everything in life it is down to what we now call threat and error management or what is better called airmanship or perhaps better still common sense. Realistically the pilot is more likely to cock up the landing or take off in a vertical take off scenario than for the engine to actually stop. It is rare these days for engines to stop, biggest reason is running out of fuel !
At work I spend most of my day in the avoid curve lifting with a 50 ft line on the heli. Reason, it is safer for the ground crew and much quicker to hook 6 bags on to a carousel then on to a belly hook, ironically especially if the donk does give up !
I think with the standards of training these days where students aren't even taught to do EOL's to the ground let alone autos from close / inside the avoid curve most have no idea of the threats of operating inside the curve. Thus they don't actually realise the problems they are putting themselves in as they have a " it won't happen to me scenario as my instructor never showed me"
You have had the luxury like some of having had military training, not sure you have experienced the quality of training on the civvy side but I am afraid it can be woeful
The trouble with you guys , TC and Syd , is that you both come across as being arrogant old farts who who know everything ! I am just trying to redress the balance a little when you come out with statements that come straight from a rule book . As I said earlier , I agree with the sentiment about trying to avoid things such as HV curve but to say " never fly in it " is unrealistic . Which is better when coming into a confined area ....barrelling in at 50knots to stay out of it ...or come to a hover , check power and slowly descend ( which would put you in the curve !) .
I'm sorry Syd if you think that makes me " chippy " .
You guys have a lot of experience between you but both have a very poor bedside manner and that doesn't help get people on your side ..... So how about trying a nicer approach to educate us poor untrained civvies and we may just listen !!
I'm sorry Syd if you think that makes me " chippy " .
You guys have a lot of experience between you but both have a very poor bedside manner and that doesn't help get people on your side ..... So how about trying a nicer approach to educate us poor untrained civvies and we may just listen !!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what comes down to is that if your operation does not require you to be flying inside the shaded área of the HV diagram you shouldn't be there, especially if you are carrying passengers. Every time I find myself flying inside the HV diagram unnecessarily a caution alarm thought goes out in my mind and i fly myself out of there.
Last edited by Soave_Pilot; 1st Feb 2016 at 01:01. Reason: Misspelling
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The trouble with you guys , TC and Syd , is that you both come across as being arrogant old farts who who know everything ! I am just trying to redress the balance a little when you come out with statements that come straight from a rule book . As I said earlier , I agree with the sentiment about trying to avoid things such as HV curve but to say " never fly in it " is unrealistic .
I think you'll find my 'statement straight from the book' was;
"Use of Chart:
Caution:
Observe the cross−hatched regions of the Height Velocity Diagram.
These represent airspeed/altitude combinations from which a
successful autorotation landing would be difficult to perform.
Operation within the cross−hatched area is not prohibited, but
should be avoided."
So, where does it say, 'never fly in it'?
I think it is quite clear; old farts like TC and myself are only trying to prevent some rotorheads that are reading these posts, from falling into the traps that others don't recognise as traps.
U-turn of the thread;
I don't see low flying as being in the HV curve and see no problem with his flying.
Ok ..i accept that low flying may be inside the curve !!
Ok ..i accept that low flying may be inside the curve !!
TC, H500 & S_P put it well
Nigel you were in grave danger of displaying some rapport there, how dare you
3 of my pet subjects are poorly understood by civvy pilots:
The Avoid Curve
Tail rotor failures
Vortex ring state
Forgive me if I am want to impart my experiences coming from a gene pool of probably the best trained helicopter pilots in the world (how is that for arrogance?).
Not only do British military pilots get the best training in the world, they get inputs from manufacturers, test facilities and test pilots that civvy pilots (on the whole) either cannot access or cannot afford.
Mil pilots have access to crash data, simulators and personal experiences that are second to none.
Please dont confuse my experience and flying education as arrogance.
I simply wish to pass onto others what I had - passed onto me when I was going through the learning process, that's all. Light out now, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite xx..................
3 of my pet subjects are poorly understood by civvy pilots:
The Avoid Curve
Tail rotor failures
Vortex ring state
Forgive me if I am want to impart my experiences coming from a gene pool of probably the best trained helicopter pilots in the world (how is that for arrogance?).
Not only do British military pilots get the best training in the world, they get inputs from manufacturers, test facilities and test pilots that civvy pilots (on the whole) either cannot access or cannot afford.
Mil pilots have access to crash data, simulators and personal experiences that are second to none.
Please dont confuse my experience and flying education as arrogance.
I simply wish to pass onto others what I had - passed onto me when I was going through the learning process, that's all. Light out now, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite xx..................
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 of my pet subjects are poorly understood by civvy pilots:
TC ( and you Syd !!) .......there is an awful lot that you say that I agree with but what I don't agree with is your method of imparting that knowledge . Your method is to firstly play the military card . ( I have loads of mil pilot friends . Some are useless in the civvy world , some are excellent and I have employed quite a few over the years . On balance I don't see any difference in their ability .) .
Next you try to humiliate people with your view of their lack of knowledge and get personal ...( that's fine with me ...I own my own helicopters and employ people like you and enjoy the banter . Others I fear just get frightened off so are no longer around to pick up your valuable advice )
There are so many gotchas out there ,I think we should concentrate on the big ones ....flying in poor viz leading to CFIT , spacial disorientation , LTE , vortex ring to name a few , these are the things that kill people . I am sorry but flying at 20-30 ft every now and then in an appropriate place is fun , ... We all do it . Every mil pilot I have flown with does it ! I'm not aware that it is inherently dangerous , especially if you know the ground re wires . I am not aware of any crashes involving engine failure while flying at low level . Equally doing a power check on every single approach to hover or land just doesn't happen in the real world ....we all look at our power settings during climb out as standard .
So just pick the things that matter and get people engaged , rather than enraged !! Nite Nite
Next you try to humiliate people with your view of their lack of knowledge and get personal ...( that's fine with me ...I own my own helicopters and employ people like you and enjoy the banter . Others I fear just get frightened off so are no longer around to pick up your valuable advice )
There are so many gotchas out there ,I think we should concentrate on the big ones ....flying in poor viz leading to CFIT , spacial disorientation , LTE , vortex ring to name a few , these are the things that kill people . I am sorry but flying at 20-30 ft every now and then in an appropriate place is fun , ... We all do it . Every mil pilot I have flown with does it ! I'm not aware that it is inherently dangerous , especially if you know the ground re wires . I am not aware of any crashes involving engine failure while flying at low level . Equally doing a power check on every single approach to hover or land just doesn't happen in the real world ....we all look at our power settings during climb out as standard .
So just pick the things that matter and get people engaged , rather than enraged !! Nite Nite
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Nigel, I have never 'played the military card' on pprune and those that know me will tell you that I don't play that mil/civ game of yours.
As for trying to humiliate people with your view of their lack of knowledge and get personal . I only quote what is said, so if you say something incorrect or simply ridiculous then of course people 'like me' will pick up on it. (thought you said you enjoy the banter) That is how we prevent the unknowing from reading what some say is 'the way we do things' and then going out and killing themselves based on the impression you have given them ... a prime example is included in your last post;
1. We don't all do it!
2. It's not only wires that will get you!
3. How can you possibly think it's not inherently dangerous!
4. What about the recent Flamborough Head incident with two fatalities!
You seem to have a distorted view of military low flying.
To generalise; Flights were always authorised with an MSD. Very rarely would it be lower than 250' and if on a 'tactical sortie' would 100' Agl/50' MSD for the snurgelling phase. Operationally heights would be 'not above' a specified height for airspace management reasons. So this picture you have of mil helicopters wazzing around at 25' just for the fun if it and because they can, is imaginative at best.
However, I appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen, and as I said earlier; dance with Lady Luck too often and she'll step on your toes .... you must remember the Puma at Catterick https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...a_za934_si.pdf
Oh yes;
I wondered when that was going to rear its head again
As for trying to humiliate people with your view of their lack of knowledge and get personal . I only quote what is said, so if you say something incorrect or simply ridiculous then of course people 'like me' will pick up on it. (thought you said you enjoy the banter) That is how we prevent the unknowing from reading what some say is 'the way we do things' and then going out and killing themselves based on the impression you have given them ... a prime example is included in your last post;
I am sorry but flying at 20-30 ft every now and then in an appropriate place is fun , ... We all do it . Every mil pilot I have flown with does it ! I'm not aware that it is inherently dangerous , especially if you know the ground re wires . I am not aware of any crashes involving engine failure while flying at low level
2. It's not only wires that will get you!
3. How can you possibly think it's not inherently dangerous!
4. What about the recent Flamborough Head incident with two fatalities!
You seem to have a distorted view of military low flying.
To generalise; Flights were always authorised with an MSD. Very rarely would it be lower than 250' and if on a 'tactical sortie' would 100' Agl/50' MSD for the snurgelling phase. Operationally heights would be 'not above' a specified height for airspace management reasons. So this picture you have of mil helicopters wazzing around at 25' just for the fun if it and because they can, is imaginative at best.
However, I appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen, and as I said earlier; dance with Lady Luck too often and she'll step on your toes .... you must remember the Puma at Catterick https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...a_za934_si.pdf
Oh yes;
I own my own helicopters and employ people like you and enjoy the banter .
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
chopjock;
I'm a civvy pilot and I understand those 3 pet subjects very well!
I'm a civvy pilot and I understand those 3 pet subjects very well!
If you understand the subject "very well" you would know that 'The height velocity diagram is based on sea level, standard day conditions, over a smooth hard surface at a specific gross weight.' you would also know that there would be a seperate chart allowing you to 'calculate the reduction in gross weight required as a function of density altitude in order for the Height Velocity curve to apply'.
So why do you say that the graph doesn't take into account "thinner air", or as we would normally refer to it in the aviation industry, density altitude, if you understand it so well?'
Sid ..... This is pointless as you take no notice of what I am saying !! Re read my post and think . I stand by what I say . Flying low level on well known home turf is not " dangerous " . It is totally different to the incident flying en route over the sea ....which IS dangerous !!!! Also your Mil low level is enroute probably over unknown terrain ....wazzing along at 25ft WOULD be dangerous !!! I ask again are you aware of any accident ever happening from engine failure flying low level on home turf over safe flat terrain that you know well ?? I seem to recall loads of quick stops done at 20-30ft with instructors at airfields presumably you have never done that either ??
Bored now , over and out !!
TC . I'm happy with the banter but play nicely !! We are ,after all, all on the same side when it comes to the safety of our fellow pilots . If we really wanted to make a difference we should force the CAA to review their stance on such things as en route ifr without full ifr rating , such as fixed wing IMC . Mandatory instrument training in actual IMC , even if just for 1 hr to experience first hand disorientation . Synthetic vision , affordable autopilots etc etc etc But nothing has been done to address this over the last 30 years !!!
Bored now , over and out !!
TC . I'm happy with the banter but play nicely !! We are ,after all, all on the same side when it comes to the safety of our fellow pilots . If we really wanted to make a difference we should force the CAA to review their stance on such things as en route ifr without full ifr rating , such as fixed wing IMC . Mandatory instrument training in actual IMC , even if just for 1 hr to experience first hand disorientation . Synthetic vision , affordable autopilots etc etc etc But nothing has been done to address this over the last 30 years !!!
Last edited by nigelh; 2nd Feb 2016 at 00:10.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I stand by what I say . Flying low level on well known home turf is not " dangerous " .
I ask again are you aware of any accident ever happening from engine failure flying low level on home turf over safe flat terrain that you know well ??
I ask again are you aware of any accident ever happening from engine failure flying low level on home turf over safe flat terrain that you know well ??
And there's this;
"Although the pilot was familiar with the airstrip and was aware of the location of the powerlines, research by the ATSB has shown that an awareness of powerline location does not guarantee avoidance."
http://www.havarikommissionen.dk/ima...vel_flying.pdf
You seem fixated on the only danger being wires or engine failures, there are many other factors that are out there just waiting for you, such as;
Agusta A109C, N109TK
Near Kew Bridge.
While cruising at 150 kt at 750 ft agl a bird struck and shattered the left windshield. The commander, seated in the left seat, suffered minor injuries so the co-pilot took control and made a successful emergency landing.
Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle
Location:Rudding Park
Summary:
The pilot, was undertaking a helicopter flight with a passenger, in gusty wind conditions. He was seen flying slowly, at a low level, near a chalet he owned in the grounds of an hotel when the aircraft was seen to spin around, before pitching up and falling to the ground, fatally injuring the two occupants.
Perhaps 'dangerous' is too emotive and vague a term to be bandied around in this context - branding something simply as 'dangerous' or 'safe' is too binary when we all know there is a sliding scale of risk attached to aviation (as in most things in life).
So if you start with the premise that all aviation activities carry risk - which we make strident efforts to minimise through training, regulation, engineering practices etc - it is clear that some of those activities will carry additional risk.
Is flying close to the ground inherently 'dangerous'? clearly not becuase it is happening around the world all the time. Does it carry extra risk? Most certainly, or we would all be smashing around at 5' and 140 kts because that would be lots of fun.
However, most of us want to go home to our wives and family at the end of the day so such additional risks as wirestrike, inadvertant contact with the ground, birdstike, catastrophic mechanical failure (including engine failure) are taken into consideration and the sliding scale of risk (in this case lower and faster) is modified by our willingness to take on that extra risk and our reasons for doing so.
The message really is - can you fly inside the H-V curve? Yes.
Should you fly inside the H-V curve and how far into it do you go? Providing you have understood the additional risks and have a good reason for doing so then how far you push is a matter for a good risk vs reward assessment.
The danger is that pilots often have a greatly over-inflated opinion of their ability, especially in dealing with rapidly changing and dynamic situations and that is where people get suckered into the 'I can do this, I'm a great pilot' which can often become 'I've been doing this for years and it's been fine' right up to the point where it isn't.
The Colin Macrae incident is a case in point - over confidence and a history of showboating isn't a good recipe for safe low flying.
So if you start with the premise that all aviation activities carry risk - which we make strident efforts to minimise through training, regulation, engineering practices etc - it is clear that some of those activities will carry additional risk.
Is flying close to the ground inherently 'dangerous'? clearly not becuase it is happening around the world all the time. Does it carry extra risk? Most certainly, or we would all be smashing around at 5' and 140 kts because that would be lots of fun.
However, most of us want to go home to our wives and family at the end of the day so such additional risks as wirestrike, inadvertant contact with the ground, birdstike, catastrophic mechanical failure (including engine failure) are taken into consideration and the sliding scale of risk (in this case lower and faster) is modified by our willingness to take on that extra risk and our reasons for doing so.
The message really is - can you fly inside the H-V curve? Yes.
Should you fly inside the H-V curve and how far into it do you go? Providing you have understood the additional risks and have a good reason for doing so then how far you push is a matter for a good risk vs reward assessment.
The danger is that pilots often have a greatly over-inflated opinion of their ability, especially in dealing with rapidly changing and dynamic situations and that is where people get suckered into the 'I can do this, I'm a great pilot' which can often become 'I've been doing this for years and it's been fine' right up to the point where it isn't.
The Colin Macrae incident is a case in point - over confidence and a history of showboating isn't a good recipe for safe low flying.
Crab good post, danger has levels you draw a line for your self as long as it does not impinge on others.
"Is flying close to the ground inherently 'dangerous'? clearly not because it is happening around the world all the time. Does it carry extra risk? Most certainly, or we would all be smashing around at 5' and 140 kts because that would be lots of fun.
However, most of us want to go home to our wives and family at the end of the day so such additional risks as wirestrike, inadvertent contact with the ground, birdstike, catastrophic mechanical failure (including engine failure) are taken into consideration and the sliding scale of risk (in this case lower and faster) is modified by our willingness to take on that extra risk and our reasons for doing so."
"Is flying close to the ground inherently 'dangerous'? clearly not because it is happening around the world all the time. Does it carry extra risk? Most certainly, or we would all be smashing around at 5' and 140 kts because that would be lots of fun.
However, most of us want to go home to our wives and family at the end of the day so such additional risks as wirestrike, inadvertent contact with the ground, birdstike, catastrophic mechanical failure (including engine failure) are taken into consideration and the sliding scale of risk (in this case lower and faster) is modified by our willingness to take on that extra risk and our reasons for doing so."
Good sensible post Crab , all of which I pretty much agree with !
However we were talking specifically about the avoid curve and specifically about engine failures . Sid has STILL not come up with any evidence of any crash ( there must be one over the last 30 years as its so dangerous ...!!) that is relevant to v low flying engine failures .
I made it clear as day that wazzing around hitting wires / trees / losing control were not relevant !!! If he can't find a few accidents directly due to low level engine failures within the avoid curve then I think it's fair to say that it's not inherently dangerous !!
However we were talking specifically about the avoid curve and specifically about engine failures . Sid has STILL not come up with any evidence of any crash ( there must be one over the last 30 years as its so dangerous ...!!) that is relevant to v low flying engine failures .
I made it clear as day that wazzing around hitting wires / trees / losing control were not relevant !!! If he can't find a few accidents directly due to low level engine failures within the avoid curve then I think it's fair to say that it's not inherently dangerous !!