Vuichard again
Hughes500. I feel your pain and you are not alone. Many small helicopter companies complain about that and other bureaucratic overload. In that article I used, it was quite clear, that EASA is aware of the problem. I hope there will be a change, but bureaucracy has the unfortunate habit to get worse. Interestingly, the UK was the main driver of it (ask any Swiss operator). The big UK companies forced the smaller ones to adapt to their standard. What I don't get, you are not part of EASA since 2021. You have to blame the CAA, now. EASA really wants the smaller companies to have more freedom, but EASA has to coordinate quite a few national agencies and not all of them think that this idea is good.
As for training in the US, they are in a transition phase, from the Practical Test Standards (PTS, one fits all) to Scenario Based Training. It is implemented for fixed wing and should shortly become also the standard for helicopter training.
The idea behind it is, that every student learns what he actually needs. A private pilot who is only flying around on Sundays for recreational purposes, will receive a different training, than a pilot who aims for the airlines from the start. I think this makes sense, others think it is complicated and stupid. Time will tell. BTW the FAA mentions expressly that stick and rudder skills will not be compromised. I hope they stick to that, because some pilots today are lost without iPad and autopilot.
If you are interested here is the FAA site: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/
From my experience, there are all sorts of FI's and schools in the US. Some of them are bad, I mean really bad. They tend to disappear after a while with the money of the students normally. But the US also has companies like Flight Safety or quite a few universities have an aeronautical department with flight training - also helicopter. You get ratings and degrees there. Even EASA ratings are possible at least for fixed wing. EASA does not have any helicopter flight school anymore on their list of approved schools. I thought there were two.
The FI-problem is a mixed bag in the US. Some schools really take the cheapest CFI's they can get and know very well, that they will leave for the airlines as soon as possible. Not so bad in the helicopter industry, where low time CFI's start with just the easy flights and ground school and have to work their way up to more difficult tasks (insurance). None of the CFI's I did full downs or other crazy things with, was a young hot shot. Many CFI's enjoy teaching and do it part time with a better paying flying job as the main occupation. Some of them have strange habits, but one can always learn something from the old geezers. One of them insisted, that on the 180° auto to bleed of airspeed almost completely, like a quickstop at altitude, turn with the pedals towards your landing spot and then build up airspeed again. While I was quite reluctant at first, it worked quite well. Somehow much less stressful than the conventional way and a lot easier to hit the spot. One trick more in the bag. Anyway, there are very good schools and very experienced CFI's in the US, one has just to find them.
Yeah, I have done full downs in the H300. No drama. In the R44 it is almost boring. The R22 I don't like for full downs. Not extremely difficult but I just don't get very comfortable with it. Strange feeling, since I have most of my full downs in R22's.
As for training in the US, they are in a transition phase, from the Practical Test Standards (PTS, one fits all) to Scenario Based Training. It is implemented for fixed wing and should shortly become also the standard for helicopter training.
The idea behind it is, that every student learns what he actually needs. A private pilot who is only flying around on Sundays for recreational purposes, will receive a different training, than a pilot who aims for the airlines from the start. I think this makes sense, others think it is complicated and stupid. Time will tell. BTW the FAA mentions expressly that stick and rudder skills will not be compromised. I hope they stick to that, because some pilots today are lost without iPad and autopilot.
If you are interested here is the FAA site: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/training/fits/
From my experience, there are all sorts of FI's and schools in the US. Some of them are bad, I mean really bad. They tend to disappear after a while with the money of the students normally. But the US also has companies like Flight Safety or quite a few universities have an aeronautical department with flight training - also helicopter. You get ratings and degrees there. Even EASA ratings are possible at least for fixed wing. EASA does not have any helicopter flight school anymore on their list of approved schools. I thought there were two.
The FI-problem is a mixed bag in the US. Some schools really take the cheapest CFI's they can get and know very well, that they will leave for the airlines as soon as possible. Not so bad in the helicopter industry, where low time CFI's start with just the easy flights and ground school and have to work their way up to more difficult tasks (insurance). None of the CFI's I did full downs or other crazy things with, was a young hot shot. Many CFI's enjoy teaching and do it part time with a better paying flying job as the main occupation. Some of them have strange habits, but one can always learn something from the old geezers. One of them insisted, that on the 180° auto to bleed of airspeed almost completely, like a quickstop at altitude, turn with the pedals towards your landing spot and then build up airspeed again. While I was quite reluctant at first, it worked quite well. Somehow much less stressful than the conventional way and a lot easier to hit the spot. One trick more in the bag. Anyway, there are very good schools and very experienced CFI's in the US, one has just to find them.
Yeah, I have done full downs in the H300. No drama. In the R44 it is almost boring. The R22 I don't like for full downs. Not extremely difficult but I just don't get very comfortable with it. Strange feeling, since I have most of my full downs in R22's.
Last edited by Rotorbee; 11th May 2022 at 05:32. Reason: Nicer.
Time to let it go.
I've been waiting a week to say this.
Calling overpitching/being too heavy to HOGE/waiting too long to put on the brakes/or any other situation where you find yourself running out of power, "Settling with Power" is not going to save my life any more than calling the Vortex Ring State, "Settling with Power" is going to end it.
Its just a slang term pilots made up to express what they were experiencing. It has no "correct" usage. Deal with it!
Anyway, I'm making a pinky swear to never use the term "Settling with ******* Power" ever again, or to get all butthurt anymore when someone else does. I'm out,...
- Rant over
Calling overpitching/being too heavy to HOGE/waiting too long to put on the brakes/or any other situation where you find yourself running out of power, "Settling with Power" is not going to save my life any more than calling the Vortex Ring State, "Settling with Power" is going to end it.
Its just a slang term pilots made up to express what they were experiencing. It has no "correct" usage. Deal with it!
Anyway, I'm making a pinky swear to never use the term "Settling with ******* Power" ever again, or to get all butthurt anymore when someone else does. I'm out,...
- Rant over
Bit like a "hover auto" versus "power failure in the hover" (IGE) Neither of which involve autorotation of course.
Couldn't resist - sorry.
Couldn't resist - sorry.
I thought Californians were supposed to be 'laid back'..........
Robbie, glad you'r back. In a way, you are right, but from a FI point of view, one wants her or his students to be clear, what they are talking about. Therefore it is legitimate to talk about the terms, because in the end that saves lifes.
As you can see, I do not agree with using both terms (again, from a FI view), because the whole situation is just too messed up. I recently read an old paper of the Navy (the culprit in this whole mess, apparently), where they use SWP in a slightly different way. This has to stop, just for the sake of new students.
Don't take the crab to serious. He really cares about all that stuff and that is a good thing.
Since we are done with the terms now, we can go back to Vuichard's thing, because if the NTSB finds out, that the R44 chopped it's tail of, because they were training Vuichard's method, we will have a lot to talk about.
As you can see, I do not agree with using both terms (again, from a FI view), because the whole situation is just too messed up. I recently read an old paper of the Navy (the culprit in this whole mess, apparently), where they use SWP in a slightly different way. This has to stop, just for the sake of new students.
Don't take the crab to serious. He really cares about all that stuff and that is a good thing.
Since we are done with the terms now, we can go back to Vuichard's thing, because if the NTSB finds out, that the R44 chopped it's tail of, because they were training Vuichard's method, we will have a lot to talk about.
Robbie, glad you'r back. In a way, you are right, but from a FI point of view, one wants her or his students to be clear, what they are talking about. Therefore it is legitimate to talk about the terms, because in the end that saves lifes.
As you can see, I do not agree with using both terms (again, from a FI view), because the whole situation is just too messed up. I recently read an old paper of the Navy (the culprit in this whole mess, apparently), where they use SWP in a slightly different way. This has to stop, just for the sake of new students.
Don't take the crab to serious. He really cares about all that stuff and that is a good thing.
Since we are done with the terms now, we can go back to Vuichard's thing, because if the NTSB finds out, that the R44 chopped it's tail of, because they were training Vuichard's method, we will have a lot to talk about.
As you can see, I do not agree with using both terms (again, from a FI view), because the whole situation is just too messed up. I recently read an old paper of the Navy (the culprit in this whole mess, apparently), where they use SWP in a slightly different way. This has to stop, just for the sake of new students.
Don't take the crab to serious. He really cares about all that stuff and that is a good thing.
Since we are done with the terms now, we can go back to Vuichard's thing, because if the NTSB finds out, that the R44 chopped it's tail of, because they were training Vuichard's method, we will have a lot to talk about.
Anyway, if Vuchard is going to turn into one of those things that causes more accidents in practice than in reality, then maybe we don't need to fix something that wasn't broken.
You want a term that will chop the tail off? Yell out "add power" to a Robby pilot when you really mean "roll on throttle" as your 500 is approaching the ground while its rpm is decaying.
maybe we don't need to fix something that wasn't broken.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Can you explain that as it doesn't make any sense to me?
Seems this companies 500's had very loose throttle friction, which allowed the normal vibrations to roll them down in cruise flight (something I noticed on my first flight) at least I'm guessing at that being the cause.
Anyway, they were coming in for a landing, the rpm had gotten low, the check pilot (who had been trained in Schweizers and was thus used to playing with the throttle) yells out, "ADD POWER, ADD POWER". The Robby pilot (who almost never touches the throttle) instinctively pulls up on the collective (which of course is the wrong thing to do in this situation) they hit hard, the tail is chopped off, and the instructor developes a stigma of Robby pilots always rolling the throttle down on him for reasons he cannot fathom (as he assumed of me when I told him our rpm had gotten low).
You see there's two things about Robby pilots this guy didn't know.
1. In an effort to not override the governor during the early (death grip) days of flight training, we are taught to hold the collective, with just a couple fingers lightly touching the throttle. Therefore, we are less likely to notice a loose throttle rolling itself down (I myself didn't notice it until I looked at the tach). Schweizer pilots (I have noticed) place their entire hand on the throttle, therefore preventing a loose throttle from rolling itself down,...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know it had a loose throttle.
2. Since Robby pilots do not manipulate the throttle during normal flight, the term "power" is associated with the collective, not the throttle. So "add power means" up collective, not increase throttle.
Curious if any operators, or even any manufacturers, train and test VRS with their pilots. In a full career of Bell mediums including factory training, 76, 139, 332, it was never once done in training. I've tried demonstrating it instructing on lights and was inconsistent. Got into VRS once with a 407 bucketing and easily transitioned out forward (non-Vuichard).
Curious if any operators, or even any manufacturers, train and test VRS with their pilots
Robbie, the fault lies with the instructor doing the check ride for using the wrong terminology. If the RPM is down in a 500 then it is throttle not power, doesnt really matter how you look at it. As for throttle friction that is down to you, you have it set where you like it. If you have it undone the tendency is to close the throttle as you pull the lever up. The term power in any helicopter is always collective, go back to basic effects of controls the first flight lesson ( well it is in Europe ) collective controls power and height, throttle controls engine and rotor rpm.
Curious if any operators, or even any manufacturers, train and test VRS with their pilots
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was getting checked out in the 500 the instructor regailed the fate of their other 500 (which was sitting in the hangar in two pieces) the last time he checked out a Robby pilot.
Seems this companies 500's had very loose throttle friction, which allowed the normal vibrations to roll them down in cruise flight (something I noticed on my first flight) at least I'm guessing at that being the cause.
Anyway, they were coming in for a landing, the rpm had gotten low, the check pilot (who had been trained in Schweizers and was thus used to playing with the throttle) yells out, "ADD POWER, ADD POWER". The Robby pilot (who almost never touches the throttle) instinctively pulls up on the collective (which of course is the wrong thing to do in this situation) they hit hard, the tail is chopped off, and the instructor developes a stigma of Robby pilots always rolling the throttle down on him for reasons he cannot fathom (as he assumed of me when I told him our rpm had gotten low).
You see there's two things about Robby pilots this guy didn't know.
1. In an effort to not override the governor during the early (death grip) days of flight training, we are taught to hold the collective, with just a couple fingers lightly touching the throttle. Therefore, we are less likely to notice a loose throttle rolling itself down (I myself didn't notice it until I looked at the tach). Schweizer pilots (I have noticed) place their entire hand on the throttle, therefore preventing a loose throttle from rolling itself down,...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know it had a loose throttle.
2. Since Robby pilots do not manipulate the throttle during normal flight, the term "power" is associated with the collective, not the throttle. So "add power means" up collective, not increase throttle.
Seems this companies 500's had very loose throttle friction, which allowed the normal vibrations to roll them down in cruise flight (something I noticed on my first flight) at least I'm guessing at that being the cause.
Anyway, they were coming in for a landing, the rpm had gotten low, the check pilot (who had been trained in Schweizers and was thus used to playing with the throttle) yells out, "ADD POWER, ADD POWER". The Robby pilot (who almost never touches the throttle) instinctively pulls up on the collective (which of course is the wrong thing to do in this situation) they hit hard, the tail is chopped off, and the instructor developes a stigma of Robby pilots always rolling the throttle down on him for reasons he cannot fathom (as he assumed of me when I told him our rpm had gotten low).
You see there's two things about Robby pilots this guy didn't know.
1. In an effort to not override the governor during the early (death grip) days of flight training, we are taught to hold the collective, with just a couple fingers lightly touching the throttle. Therefore, we are less likely to notice a loose throttle rolling itself down (I myself didn't notice it until I looked at the tach). Schweizer pilots (I have noticed) place their entire hand on the throttle, therefore preventing a loose throttle from rolling itself down,...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know it had a loose throttle.
2. Since Robby pilots do not manipulate the throttle during normal flight, the term "power" is associated with the collective, not the throttle. So "add power means" up collective, not increase throttle.
Did you mean the piston powered Hughes/Schweizer 300?
I was just cruising along, looked at the tach, and saw the rpm was low. I rolled it back up, which caused the nose to yaw, waking up the instructor, who then said to me, "I don't know why you Robby pilots are always rolling the throttle down" To which I replied, "I wasn't even touching it".
That is much clearer and makes sense Robbiee, thank you.
Thank god I learned on the R22 HP. I always had a deathgrip on the throttle. Especially since you want to know immediately, if there was a sudden surprise by your instructor in the form of a throttle chop.
But isn't that a bit a strange behaviour of a throttle to role itself off?
But isn't that a bit a strange behaviour of a throttle to role itself off?
But isn't that a bit a strange behaviour of a throttle to role itself off?
