Hill Helicopters HX50

[PPRuNeUser469990]

Well, I'm sure Jason Hill has a plan to get err, 1,000 people type rated/trained every year.

[212man]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

Well, I'm sure Jason Hill has a plan to get err, 1,000 people type rated/trained every year.

Greenshield stamps or cornflakes packets

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Of course there are plenty of genuine amateur builders but where the factory gets involved with kits it gets a bit grey - you can pay others to do the 51% for you for example.

Not quite. You can only “pay others”, ie., commercial assistance, up to 49% of the build, that’s regulatory. The builder must still prove that “amateurs” built the remaining 51%. And with the HX I’m pretty positive this will be extensively reviewed from what I’ve learned.

I'd love to see the similar list for the HX50, will that ever be published?

There was an initial list sent to the FAA, UKCAA, TCCA, and one other CAA which was accepted as complying with the major portion requirement. Once the actual production process is finalized, I anticipate a formal list will be available at that time.

I still believe the 51% plan for owners to build/assemble an HX50 is smoke and mirrors to utilise a regulatory loophole -

Not at all. You appear to be hung up on there is only one regulatory path to build an aircraft and that the HX is using some sort of shortcut around that one path. There are a multitude of regulatory paths one can follow build an aircraft, each separate with their own specific requirements, and each resulting in the issuance of an AWC based on their own separate merits. None of these paths are connected or provide loopholes or shortcuts between them, ie., E/AB.

If a Special Airworthiness Certificate is required for each aircraft, how can you say there is no requirement for it to be airworthy?????

Because the term “airworthy” has a defined legal application and definition: conforms to its approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. Since an E/AB has no approved design the term airworthy cannot be used. As I mentioned earlier, the proper regulatory term for non-approved aircraft is: condition for safe operation. There are a number of regulatory refences on this so no pin head dancing required.

What plans are there for type conversion to the HX for pilots? Is there a factory training system ? Will Hill have a DTO?

As I understand each HX comes with a pilot training school and field maintenance training school. For the US, a pilot will only need a rotorcraft rating as there are no type requirements that I know of for the HX.

[CGameProgrammerr]

There would definitely not be a type rating required in the US, as I believe no light helicopters require type ratings here. Of course only an idiot would fly a helicopter he hasn't trained in (without a more experienced pilot also at the controls).

[[email protected]]

Hughes is right - didn't know this

The privileges of an FE certificate for helicopters allows an examiner to carry out the following:

• Skill tests for the issue of the PPL(H) and skill tests and proficiency checks for single-pilot single-engine helicopter type ratings entered in a PPL(H)
• Skill tests for the issue of the CPL(H) and skill tests and proficiency checks for single-pilot single-engine helicopter type ratings entered in a CPL(H)
• Skill tests and proficiency checks for single-pilot multi-engine helicopter type ratings entered in a PPL(H) or a CPL(H)
• Skill tests and proficiency checks for the LAPL(H)

But you still have to be FI to be FE

Applicants for an FE PPL certificate for helicopters shall:

• Hold a PPL(H), CPL (H), MPL (H) or ATPL (H) with the appropriate medical class
  
• Hold an FI certificate in the appropriate aircraft category
  
• Have completed at least 1,000 hours of flight time as a pilot on helicopters, including at least 250 hours of flight instruction
  
• Be qualified to act as pilot in command on the aircraft during a skill test, proficiency check or assessment of competence when conducted on the aircraft

Wrench, you seem to have a great deal more confidence than me in the robustness of this project in terms of safety, checks and balances. Until the aircraft flys though, it is all supposition.

You seem happy to accept everything Hill says at face value despite how far to the right all his time frames have shifted already - and yes, I'm sure there are plenty of excuses as to why.

Let's wait (how long we don't know) for the HX50 to start its flight tests and then there will be some concrete evidence of progress, delivery times and safety.
​​​​​​​
BTW, I was offered the option to pay for the 51% (not just the 49%) of an aircraft build so I know there are ways round the rules.

[Hughes500]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Hughes is right - didn't know this

But you still have to be FI to be FE

Wrench, you seem to have a great deal more confidence than me in the robustness of this project in terms of safety, checks and balances. Until the aircraft flys though, it is all supposition.

You seem happy to accept everything Hill says at face value despite how far to the right all his time frames have shifted already - and yes, I'm sure there are plenty of excuses as to why.

Let's wait (how long we don't know) for the HX50 to start its flight tests and then there will be some concrete evidence of progress, delivery times and safety.

BTW, I was offered the option to pay for the 51% (not just the 49%) of an aircraft build so I know there are ways round the rules.

Crab, makes a change I do know something as an Fi /FE gave up being a TRE as it was costing nearly £ 2k to renew

[206 jock]

Originally Posted by Hughes500

Crab, makes a change I do know something as an Fi /FE gave up being a TRE as it was costing nearly £ 2k to renew

It's not just the cost: the CAA are actively pursuing TREs who pass pilots in a PC who then go on to eg bust controlled airspace. The argument that they are simply monitoring a pilot's competence for 0.7 of an hour for a set of exercises is lost on the CAA who seem to consider that by signing them off, they are implying a monitor of general airmanship.

So TREs are understandably reluctant to take on 'new' pilots.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

Some fag-packet maths...

1,000 aircraft/owners a year means 19 seven hour "type ratings" per week.

19 x 7 hours of flying is 133 hours of testing/training per week

An instructor can fly about 17 hours a week (3.4 hours a day over a 5 day week)

133 divided by 17 is about 8

So....Hill is going to need about 8 full time instructors/examiners onsite every week, and that's not allowing for weather/sickness/holidays/aircraft tech/extra training needed etc etc

So let's say ten instructors/examiners.

Given the state of the flight training industry in the uk, where exactly are ten full-time (experienced turbine) flight instructors/examiners going to be found who are willing to relocate to wherever the factory is?

[Hughes500]

Originally Posted by 206 jock

It's not just the cost: the CAA are actively pursuing TREs who pass pilots in a PC who then go on to eg bust controlled airspace. The argument that they are simply monitoring a pilot's competence for 0.7 of an hour for a set of exercises is lost on the CAA who seem to consider that by signing them off, they are implying a monitor of general airmanship.

So TREs are understandably reluctant to take on 'new' pilots.

Its all of us !

[206 jock]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

Some fag-packet maths...

1,000 aircraft/owners a year means 19 seven hour "type ratings" per week.

19 x 7 hours of flying is 133 hours of testing/training per week

An instructor can fly about 17 hours a week (3.4 hours a day over a 5 day week)

133 divided by 17 is about 8

So....Hill is going to need about 8 full time instructors/examiners onsite every week, and that's not allowing for weather/sickness/holidays/aircraft tech/extra training needed etc etc

So let's say ten instructors/examiners.

Given the state of the flight training industry in the uk, where exactly are ten full-time (experienced turbine) flight instructors/examiners going to be found who are willing to relocate to wherever the factory is?

H99 it's all a house of cards. Factory space (20 bays dedicated to finishing helicopters!), engineers, parts/raw materials supply, logistics etc etc. The 1000 per year number is just to make it sound like anyone placing a deposit today won't be waiting 10 years+ for their aircraft.

[VM325]

Originally Posted by 206 jock

H99 it's all a house of cards. Factory space (20 bays dedicated to finishing helicopters!), engineers, parts/raw materials supply, logistics etc etc. The 1000 per year number is just to make it sound like anyone placing a deposit today won't be waiting 10 years+ for their aircraft.

Except you're assuming the 1000 a year is all in the UK.
I thought there was going to be manufacturing/building going on in other countries...?

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

You seem happy to accept everything Hill says at face value despite how far to the right all his time frames have shifted already - and yes, I'm sure there are plenty of excuses as to why.

Keep in mind, I’m assisting actual HX slot-owners so my comments are based more on 1st hand experiences of people personally involved vs simply watching videos and reading posts here. And considering it takes 10 years to certify a conventional aircraft, their view on the time frame changes tends to remain neutral with one slot owner jokingly stated he’s still waiting to ride on the AW609. Perhaps in 5 years their views may change if there’s no tangible results with the HX? But who knows, as you imply time will tell.

​​​​BTW, I was offered the option to pay for the 51% (not just the 49%) of an aircraft build so I know there are ways round the rules.

Interesting. So maybe under UK rules there is a way? In the US there’s not unless you violate the rules. And those who have tried have lost their E/AB eligibility and ended up with an E/Exhibition classification at best or a pile of expensive parts at worst.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

...I was offered the option to pay for the 51% (not just the 49%) of an aircraft build so I know there are ways round the rules.

I am puzzled. If a prospective owner of a HX50 isn't inclined to put 51% effort into the build, can't they just arrange for someone else so do so on their behalf? That would be no different to an E/AB aircraft being built by an original owner and then being sold to a new owner some time afterwards.

[EXDAC]

Originally Posted by helispotter

I am puzzled. If a prospective owner of a HX50 isn't inclined to put 51% effort into the build, can't they just arrange for someone else so do so on their behalf? That would be no different to an E/AB aircraft being built by an original owner and then being sold to a new owner some time afterwards.

It's the "on their behalf" that is problematic and not allowed under FAA rules. You could legally fund someone to be the original owner and builder and then buy it from them. They would be the builder of record and you, not being the builder, could not qualify for a repairman certificate. (The repairman certificate authorizes the original builder to conduct condition inspections).

[Hughes500]

Type ratings etc etc. Without trying to be negative here but .....
For my UK / EASA company to have the type on our ATO's then we would have a manual rewrite, all instructors / examiners need to have 15 hours plus on type . To be honest as a 10k hours examiner i am never really comfortable examining someone until I have a good 25 to 50 hour on type myself, same with instruction.
Most piston pilots coming to a turbine need way more than 5 hours to be confident ( just in performance alone ) on type to pass a skills test, especially when the ac is more complicated than say a 500 which has no hydraulics and is basically a blow torch turning a set of blades ! So I would suggest that there needs to be a couple of days worth of ground school plus 5 to 10 hours flying, so that would be a week per owner. I guess for the PPLH with a turbine rating even then 3 to 4 days at a minimum !
Currently there arent the number of instructors or examiners in the Uk to satisfy the demand.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

10 hours of flying per customer, plus groundschool, means Hill will need at least 11-15 full time instructors/examiners, if he's making 1,000 aircraft per year. That's a PAYE wage bill of around £800,000 per year

[[email protected]]

Perhaps he will invest in a suite of FSTDs...............

[cyclic_fondler]

I think this "1000 aircraft per year" is taking us down a rabbit hole.

I remember a few hundred posts ago!!, someone posted a very specific unit production per year for the first 3 years. ( 1st year 360+, 2nd year 440+ and 3rd year 500+) , hopefully they can come back and post an update.. This would mean that most of the backlog will be filled by the 3rd year. Even after the first flight and them the start of production, the demand will probably no more than 200 per year and the figure of 1000 per year will be pure fantasy.

I may be naive , but being optimistic and hoping this venture will work.

If it does, it will mean a number of manufacturing jobs and also a number of flying jobs. I went to the USA to do my flight training and was trained by ex US military pilots who did it for beer money but mainly to give their experience to new pilots. It would be great if the CAA would allow ex QFIs from the military to help train the new and up and coming pilots these days without jumping through massive hops. But that's another topic.

Secondly, the HX50 will force the other manufactures to find ways to reduce the costs of their products. Robinsons will have their sales hit quite hard and so they will have to go to Rolls Royce and Lycoming and they'll have to tell them to reduce the initial cost of their engines and the maintenance else the orders will be reduced.

Lets see what happens.

All Dr Hill has to do is put a silhouette of a R66 against a HX50

[KiwiNedNZ]

All Dr Hill has to do is put a silhouette of a R66 against a HX50

Youre comparing a homebuilt with a real helicopter - I know what I would choose. And the chances of his certified version ever getting "certified" is a LONG LONG way away.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

Yes, and further depress/restrict Instructor wages (that have barely increased in almost 20 years), great idea.

Anyway, there are no "massive hoops", ex-mil QFIs don't have to do a full Civilian CPL or Instructor course

It would be great if the CAA would allow ex QFIs from the military to help train the new and up and coming pilots these days without jumping through massive hops