FAA drops touchdown autorotations from FI tests
Thread Starter
FAA drops touchdown autorotations from FI tests
No, next step is no more flight test, the "examiner" will never leave the ground; merely sign the stude off on the basis of a statement of competence from his instructor.
Much less risk for the examiner you see, avoiding all this unnecessary and hazardous flying.
Pussies.
Much less risk for the examiner you see, avoiding all this unnecessary and hazardous flying.
Pussies.
Stop bitchin' this is only an appropriate conclusion from learning that even police CPLs doing NVG flights fail to autorotate properly, let alone to the ground.
I predict this: "in unanimous agreement with major helicopter and turbine industry experts the FAA will mandate triple engined helos as the minimum for passenger flight and twins as minimum for long lining and high tension line washing, as computer simulation has show that these setups will make total engine failures even less probable..." the rest of the statement, speaking of fuel management guidelines will not be heard anymore due to the noise of champagne corks popping at the table of the nearby industry experts...
*sheesh* I'm becoming increasingly proud of actually having done an unplanned auto rotation to the ground during inital training.
As current insurance policies waive liability if the renter of a helo does practize emergency ops and examiners happily declare auto rotations till 10ft as "perfect, we'd have waked away from this one, you pass" it might have been the only one to the ground I'll ever have done.
I predict this: "in unanimous agreement with major helicopter and turbine industry experts the FAA will mandate triple engined helos as the minimum for passenger flight and twins as minimum for long lining and high tension line washing, as computer simulation has show that these setups will make total engine failures even less probable..." the rest of the statement, speaking of fuel management guidelines will not be heard anymore due to the noise of champagne corks popping at the table of the nearby industry experts...
*sheesh* I'm becoming increasingly proud of actually having done an unplanned auto rotation to the ground during inital training.
As current insurance policies waive liability if the renter of a helo does practize emergency ops and examiners happily declare auto rotations till 10ft as "perfect, we'd have waked away from this one, you pass" it might have been the only one to the ground I'll ever have done.
Having had 2 x engine failures over past 26 years I am grateful that I was taught & still do practise Auto's 
a sad & pathetic day for the spineless non-skilled industry dropping Auto's, rather than upping the skills level, they're accommodating the unskilled 
a sad & pathetic day for the spineless non-skilled industry dropping Auto's, rather than upping the skills level, they're accommodating the unskilled
The candidate still has to be endorsed that he/she has satisfactorily demonstrated touch down auto's in their instructor rating prep.
Personally I think the ruling makes sense. A DPE can do an instructor rating flight test in any aircraft type, and they may not be current in that type.
The candidate is still being signed off to do touchdown auto's but it sounds like it us to help mitigate having an accident in the flight test.
It doesn't read to me that the industry is dropping touch down auto's altogether and no longer teaching them.
Personally I think the ruling makes sense. A DPE can do an instructor rating flight test in any aircraft type, and they may not be current in that type.
The candidate is still being signed off to do touchdown auto's but it sounds like it us to help mitigate having an accident in the flight test.
It doesn't read to me that the industry is dropping touch down auto's altogether and no longer teaching them.
The candidate still has to be endorsed that he/she has satisfactorily demonstrated touch down auto's in their instructor rating prep.
No more so than DPE's that haven't bothered with it even though they were supposed to.
I'm not defending anything, I couldn't really care less. I just honestly think that it doesn't really change what is/was already occurring.
I'm not defending anything, I couldn't really care less. I just honestly think that it doesn't really change what is/was already occurring.
Just for clarification, I went to the Practical Test Standards, revised, and copied the text for you all:
FAA CFI Practical Test Standards Here
Bold and underline added by me for clarification:
So, in reality nothing has changed other than giving an examiner the ability to accept an endorsement from a more current CFI. This would be in line with a proper Flight Risk Assessment by the examiner.
As Wageslave so eloquently put it:
Until he became an ass:
Why he feels the need to be like that I do not know-----and yet is is this side of the pond that gets accused of being the assholes.
FAA CFI Practical Test Standards Here
Bold and underline added by me for clarification:
Performance of Autorotations
Instructional knowledge must be demonstrated on the practical test in
autorotations, either straight-in or 180°, as per Area of Operation X for a
helicopter class rating.
An examiner may accept, at his or her discretion, a logbook endorsement
in lieu of demonstrating these tasks during the practical test.
This logbook
endorsement must be given by a current flight instructor with a rotorcraft
category and helicopter class rating on his or her flight instructor
certificate that provided the training and can attest to the applicant’s
competence in these tasks. The following areas must be trained, and
documented in the endorsement, as evidence of instructional knowledge relating to the elements, common errors, performance, and correction of
common errors related to straight-in and 180° autorotations.
This logbook endorsement may be accepted, at the discretion of the
examiner, provided the practical test is not a retest as a result of the
applicant failing the previous practical test for deficiencies in instructional
knowledge pertaining to the elements, common errors, performance, or
correction of common errors related to straight-in or 180° autorotations.
In the case of an applicant who was found deficient in these areas, the
examiner must test the applicant in the instructional knowledge pertaining
to the elements, common errors, performance, and correction of common
errors related to straight-in and 180° autorotations. The applicant must
provide a helicopter appropriate for performing autorotations if
demonstration of this task is required during the retest.
Instructional knowledge must be demonstrated on the practical test in
autorotations, either straight-in or 180°, as per Area of Operation X for a
helicopter class rating.
An examiner may accept, at his or her discretion, a logbook endorsement
in lieu of demonstrating these tasks during the practical test.
This logbook
endorsement must be given by a current flight instructor with a rotorcraft
category and helicopter class rating on his or her flight instructor
certificate that provided the training and can attest to the applicant’s
competence in these tasks. The following areas must be trained, and
documented in the endorsement, as evidence of instructional knowledge relating to the elements, common errors, performance, and correction of
common errors related to straight-in and 180° autorotations.
This logbook endorsement may be accepted, at the discretion of the
examiner, provided the practical test is not a retest as a result of the
applicant failing the previous practical test for deficiencies in instructional
knowledge pertaining to the elements, common errors, performance, or
correction of common errors related to straight-in or 180° autorotations.
In the case of an applicant who was found deficient in these areas, the
examiner must test the applicant in the instructional knowledge pertaining
to the elements, common errors, performance, and correction of common
errors related to straight-in and 180° autorotations. The applicant must
provide a helicopter appropriate for performing autorotations if
demonstration of this task is required during the retest.
As Wageslave so eloquently put it:
Much less risk for the examiner you see, avoiding all this unnecessary and hazardous flying.
Pussies.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is preparation for the mandating of twins
step 1 dumb down the pilots so they can't autorotate successfully
step 2 cry out for something to be done
the USA has some pretty good outcomes from autorotations in general (eg the 300hr girl in Hawaii downtown)
(anyone believing its ok to briefly fly through the hv curve in a twin? i could do with some help on the HV thread)
step 1 dumb down the pilots so they can't autorotate successfully
step 2 cry out for something to be done
the USA has some pretty good outcomes from autorotations in general (eg the 300hr girl in Hawaii downtown)
(anyone believing its ok to briefly fly through the hv curve in a twin? i could do with some help on the HV thread)
No, you only get accused of having an air ambulance fatally crashing every third week or so...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as a DPE I can assure you that anyone coming to me for a check ride will have to demonstrate a touchdown. All the other DPE's I have spoken with are of the same opinion.
The only people in the helicopter industry that aren't current on the maneuver are the FAA themselves. Due to a serious lack of funds they hardly get to fly. As of a couple of weeks ago there were 38 current helicopter guys in the FAA. For the entire nation.
My local FSDO has two helicopter pilots that haven't flown in nearly two years. The problem lies within the FAA itself and is certainly not meant to cover a DPE's lack of currency or skill.
The only people in the helicopter industry that aren't current on the maneuver are the FAA themselves. Due to a serious lack of funds they hardly get to fly. As of a couple of weeks ago there were 38 current helicopter guys in the FAA. For the entire nation.
My local FSDO has two helicopter pilots that haven't flown in nearly two years. The problem lies within the FAA itself and is certainly not meant to cover a DPE's lack of currency or skill.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem lies within the FAA itself and is certainly not meant to cover a DPE's lack of currency or skill.
Last edited by EN48; 18th Apr 2016 at 00:40.
There was a case in Oz back in the 80s when 2 "Examiners of Airmen" as they were known then, took an R22 out to Camden (towered airfield about 30nm from Sydney) for some refresher training.
They were doing touchdown autos, sort of successfully, and when the examiner at the controls had finished one auto, he called "Ready".
The tower said "Are you sure?"
Examiner says "Yes, why do you ask, two dogs?"
Tower replies "Your tailboom is lying on the ground behind you."
They were doing touchdown autos, sort of successfully, and when the examiner at the controls had finished one auto, he called "Ready".
The tower said "Are you sure?"
Examiner says "Yes, why do you ask, two dogs?"
Tower replies "Your tailboom is lying on the ground behind you."
