AS 350: "Hold my beer son and watch this!"
So, as pilots, are we merely bus drivers to get from A to B as safely as possible, or did we become pilots to develop our handling and professional skills to the point where we can do a bit more than that?
Purely a discussion point with no hidden agendas.
Purely a discussion point with no hidden agendas.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to hot dog on your own time/dime, fill your boots.
If your taxi driver turned up doing a handbrake turn, would you compliment his skills and get in with the family?
If your taxi driver turned up doing a handbrake turn, would you compliment his skills and get in with the family?
Last edited by Pablo332; 21st Jul 2018 at 17:47. Reason: more stuff
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WillyPete, I would be more than happy to report this to the CAA if you have any further info on it: Date / venue / reg number?
Complete and utter total neglect for public safety. Busting every conceivable reg available, I would suggest.
Can you provide more info via PM for me please?
Complete and utter total neglect for public safety. Busting every conceivable reg available, I would suggest.
Can you provide more info via PM for me please?
Why would the CAA be interested?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So, as pilots, are we merely bus drivers to get from A to B as safely as possible, or did we become pilots to develop our handling and professional skills to the point where we can do a bit more than that?
We became pilots BY developing handling and professional skills not to develop them when there is an audience or camera nearby.
Aviation is a structured environment and it is that way because of safety and all the lessons that have been learned. What was acceptable or the norm 20 years ago is not acceptable today. It is all about context.
Impromptu, seat of the pants flying to impress others is dangerous for those in the air and on the ground.
By all means, go fly the socks off it in the right controlled, environment. If it's your aircraft, only your backside in the seat go for broke. If not, then a bit more respect for your pax and aircraft would be in order.
Accidents start between the ears, developing that muscle during each flight would be far more productive.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While being responsible for the lives of others the very definition of your role is getting from A to B as safely as possible.
We became pilots BY developing handling and professional skills not to develop them when there is an audience or camera nearby.
Aviation is a structured environment and it is that way because of safety and all the lessons that have been learned. What was acceptable or the norm 20 years ago is not acceptable today. It is all about context.
Impromptu, seat of the pants flying to impress others is dangerous for those in the air and on the ground.
By all means, go fly the socks off it in the right controlled, environment. If it's your aircraft, only your backside in the seat go for broke. If not, then a bit more respect for your pax and aircraft would be in order.
Accidents start between the ears, developing that muscle during each flight would be far more productive.
We became pilots BY developing handling and professional skills not to develop them when there is an audience or camera nearby.
Aviation is a structured environment and it is that way because of safety and all the lessons that have been learned. What was acceptable or the norm 20 years ago is not acceptable today. It is all about context.
Impromptu, seat of the pants flying to impress others is dangerous for those in the air and on the ground.
By all means, go fly the socks off it in the right controlled, environment. If it's your aircraft, only your backside in the seat go for broke. If not, then a bit more respect for your pax and aircraft would be in order.
Accidents start between the ears, developing that muscle during each flight would be far more productive.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nowdonia-wales
In the link above (accident inquiry, Snowdonia Griffin) are some highly relevant comments made about the consequences of flying helicopters (Griffin in this case) beyond the RFM limits and what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre.
In the link above (accident inquiry, Snowdonia Griffin) are some highly relevant comments made about the consequences of flying helicopters (Griffin in this case) beyond the RFM limits and what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't define aerobatic manoeuvres - it states what the Bell was designed for (50 deg AoB, 15 deg nose down and 30 deg nose up) and mentions the RAF (not RFM or any civil document) limits of 90 deg nose up and 90 deg AoB).
There is a lot of information about possible contributory causes of the structural failure including the teaching of wingovers (in the RAF syllabus for many years but apparently not picked up by Bell until they were told) and sloping ground landings - specifically the technique of reducing an out of limits slope in one direction by adjusting the heading to make it a compound slope. This has been taught for many years on many types in the military and has never been questioned since you remain inside the limits for nose up and lateral slopes.
Bell decided not to replace the support structure for the MRGB post the wingover revalation - it says this in the report - so they can't have been that bothered by it - perhaps a combination of the stresses of repeated sloping ground landings and repeated wingovers could have been modelled to suggest a different cpourse of action.
In the end, if you land out of limits on a slope (even using compound techniques) and use an inappropriate amount of forward cyclic, you are putting a lot of strain on that support structure which appears to have given way.
There is a lot of information about possible contributory causes of the structural failure including the teaching of wingovers (in the RAF syllabus for many years but apparently not picked up by Bell until they were told) and sloping ground landings - specifically the technique of reducing an out of limits slope in one direction by adjusting the heading to make it a compound slope. This has been taught for many years on many types in the military and has never been questioned since you remain inside the limits for nose up and lateral slopes.
Bell decided not to replace the support structure for the MRGB post the wingover revalation - it says this in the report - so they can't have been that bothered by it - perhaps a combination of the stresses of repeated sloping ground landings and repeated wingovers could have been modelled to suggest a different cpourse of action.
In the end, if you land out of limits on a slope (even using compound techniques) and use an inappropriate amount of forward cyclic, you are putting a lot of strain on that support structure which appears to have given way.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Crab. Very interesting report to read.
With the previous post talking about unintended consequences of exceeding limits, my question here was more to do with the relevant limits for the AS350 variant in this thread for comparison.
With the previous post talking about unintended consequences of exceeding limits, my question here was more to do with the relevant limits for the AS350 variant in this thread for comparison.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
That is part of the problem. Most helicopter manufacturers simply state in the RFM that "aerobatic manoeuvres" are prohibited, or not permitted, without actually stating what the numerical AOB/pitch/yaw limits are intended to be.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters are just not bolted together by the manufacturer for acrobatic manoeuvres - and the RFM reflects that. However, I too am guilty of testing that paradigm.
Way back in the free'n'easy days as a student (although I had a FW ticket with some experience on a number of aerobatic types) I was doing some solo circuits in a H300 with a steady 35/40 knot headwind. As you know, the top climbing speed of a H300 is not much more than that headwind component. My first turn to downwind saw me almost end up outside the circuit area. Feeling around the flying envelope my second turn to downwind was was quite steep. My third turn to downwind was at 90 degrees, and my fourth turn to downwind was a deliberate 100 degrees angle-of-bank - I wanted to go a little inverted. All turns were super smooth as was the recovery, however, when I parked the thing I realised the stupidity of my actions - these machines are fragile and this kind of flying just adds to their wear and tear. In the commercial FW world I was told you could lose your job for being an ape with the wheel brakes while taxying, which makes this kind of flying in a helicopter irresponsible. I figured this out early and have since given the machines I operate the respect they deserve.
Way back in the free'n'easy days as a student (although I had a FW ticket with some experience on a number of aerobatic types) I was doing some solo circuits in a H300 with a steady 35/40 knot headwind. As you know, the top climbing speed of a H300 is not much more than that headwind component. My first turn to downwind saw me almost end up outside the circuit area. Feeling around the flying envelope my second turn to downwind was was quite steep. My third turn to downwind was at 90 degrees, and my fourth turn to downwind was a deliberate 100 degrees angle-of-bank - I wanted to go a little inverted. All turns were super smooth as was the recovery, however, when I parked the thing I realised the stupidity of my actions - these machines are fragile and this kind of flying just adds to their wear and tear. In the commercial FW world I was told you could lose your job for being an ape with the wheel brakes while taxying, which makes this kind of flying in a helicopter irresponsible. I figured this out early and have since given the machines I operate the respect they deserve.
So, as a FW pilot with some aerobatic experience, you would have known that a level 45 deg AoB turn is 1.4g and a 60 deg AoB turn is 2g - with your 'super-smooth' roll in and roll out of the turns, how did you generate the extra power/lift on a 90 deg AoB turn - let alone the impossible task of doing that at 100 deg AoB?
Saw a post by Nick Lappos and some Sikorsky engineers on Facebook a couple of weeks ago where they talked of the severe reduction in component times as a result of the necessary manoeuvres made during test flying. Good enough for me to say stick to the book and no showboating.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9940008821.pdf
Unlike fixed wing, military at least, we don't have fatigue counters.
Aerobatic flight is defined in the particular certifying authorities regs. FAA where a lot of our machinery originates,
.
Fatigue monitoring and accounting would protect against the consequences on airframe health of unconventional manoeuvres and control activity and provide a check for greater than usual fatigue life consumption.
Unlike fixed wing, military at least, we don't have fatigue counters.
Most helicopter manufacturers simply state in the RFM that "aerobatic manoeuvres" are prohibited, or not permitted, without actually stating what the numerical AOB/pitch/yaw limits are intended to be.
[left]§ 91.303 Aerobatic flight.No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
Parachutes and parachuting.
[(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger--
(1) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(2) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.]
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with Part 105 of this chapter.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with Sec. 61.67 of this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means--
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
FARSec. 91.307
FARSec. 91.307
Parachutes and parachuting.
[(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved type and has been packed by a certificated and appropriately rated parachute rigger--
(1) Within the preceding 180 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(2) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.]
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with Part 105 of this chapter.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds--
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by--
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with Sec. 61.67 of this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means--
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C-23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.
Last edited by megan; 19th Aug 2018 at 05:36.
But none of that actually defines aerobatic flight
is so wishy-washy - perhaps deliberately so - and the section on parachuting isn't relevant, it just mentions attitude and AoB and then gives exceptions for flying training - why would you bury a theoretically wide-ranging and important limit, deep in a section about parachuting?
an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, as a FW pilot with some aerobatic experience, you would have known that a level 45 deg AoB turn is 1.4g and a 60 deg AoB turn is 2g - with your 'super-smooth' roll in and roll out of the turns, how did you generate the extra power/lift on a 90 deg AoB turn - let alone the impossible task of doing that at 100 deg AoB?
Last edited by cattletruck; 19th Aug 2018 at 10:09.
why would you bury a theoretically wide-ranging and important limit, deep in a section about parachuting
acrobatic flight means manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.
CAR 155 Acrobatic flight
(1) A pilot in command of an aircraft must not do any of the following:
(a) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight at night;
(b) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight that is not in V.M.C.;
(c) fly the aircraft in a particular kind of acrobatic flight if the certificate of airworthiness, or the flight manual, for the aircraft does not specify that the aircraft may perform that kind of acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units
CAR 155 Acrobatic flight
(1) A pilot in command of an aircraft must not do any of the following:
(a) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight at night;
(b) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight that is not in V.M.C.;
(c) fly the aircraft in a particular kind of acrobatic flight if the certificate of airworthiness, or the flight manual, for the aircraft does not specify that the aircraft may perform that kind of acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
Penalty: 25 penalty units