constant speed or variable speed approach
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavens after 45 years of doing this and having been retired for 10 years I'll have to go learn everything again. I didn't realise that a Sight Picture Approach was such a complicated exercise!
E86
E86
Many HAA/EMS operators have adopted departure and approach profiles that live entirely inside the HVD and would seeming drive a new instructor insane. An operator might require departure and approach profiles similar to:
- For any non-airport departure, maintain a profile that will ensure all obstacles are cleared by a minimum of 30 feet. After clear of all obstacles accelerate to and maintain best rate of climb speed.
- Rates of descent shall be kept below 200 fpm when less than 300 feet above the landing surface. Steep approach angles with a rate of descent greater than 200 fpm shall be avoided.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Urcal (Almeria)
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sight Picture Approach. Thank you,Eagle 86; for some 80 replies on this topic,I have barely understood where they were all coming from. A novice helo pilot in 1963 at CFS(H) I was taught only 2 approaches: sight picture and confined area. It seemed enough to see me through to 1987
Cafe solo..
Cafe solo..
Since Agile started the thread with a question about which type of approach to use and when - it seems to have a been a reasonable discussion covering a number of options.
There is not really a right and wrong way to fly your approach unless you are required to use PC1 profiles - if you can only fly an approach one particular way you are missing the fantastic flexibility that comes from being in a helicopter.
Vive la difference
There is not really a right and wrong way to fly your approach unless you are required to use PC1 profiles - if you can only fly an approach one particular way you are missing the fantastic flexibility that comes from being in a helicopter.
Vive la difference
Thread Starter
I appreciated everybodies input. there is indeed not a single fit-all prescription of one versus the other method. the principal driver of the approach profile is to reduce risk, but assessing the risk is so much specific to a specific situation.
For those who have a lot of experience in doing it with variations that have always worked it might seem to be a lot of overthinking, For the rest of us including myself the specific aerodynamic elements involved are and remain complex in a helicopter.
The opportunity to remain curious in defining those aerodynamic elements to both anticipate the effects and understand the trade offs is a fine exercise.
For those who have a lot of experience in doing it with variations that have always worked it might seem to be a lot of overthinking, For the rest of us including myself the specific aerodynamic elements involved are and remain complex in a helicopter.
The opportunity to remain curious in defining those aerodynamic elements to both anticipate the effects and understand the trade offs is a fine exercise.
Personally, the "rip, **** and bust" approach, taught to me by Eagle 86 and his mates back in 1973, is a favourite, but doesn't set a great example to the student these days.
Gotta be responsible.
No fun....
Gotta be responsible.
No fun....
With you on that one AC Wingover arrival to dispersal always worked for me
Wingover arrival to dispersal always worked for me
Originally Posted by [email protected]
With you on that one AC Wingover arrival to dispersal always worked for me
Wingover arrival to dispersal always worked for meGood Heavens, at last a reply, what took you so long Crab? Don't answer that, this has already gone on far too long!
Better still, arriving` a la Maverick` into a pull-up ,proper TQ.turn,where at the apex you should be going up and backwards,followed by a `full-free controlchec ,into a ful-face `stand-it-up flare,just dabbling the tailwheel,tailskid,bumper on the ground,hoping the Gnomes,Nimbus,or Aztissue are still co-operating,to smoooothly cushion the touchdown.....combing your hair as you get out for a well deserved coffee...sorry ,no tea/coffee,no biscuits either......!!
on the FBW thread ,I`m not sure the `unique cyclic sidearm`gizmo and FD would really be able to cope,or be such `fun`.....
on the FBW thread ,I`m not sure the `unique cyclic sidearm`gizmo and FD would really be able to cope,or be such `fun`.....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the type of approach you chose to fly your preflight planning should take into account questions as to whether the termination will be IGE or OGE.
Consult the RFM to determine a/c performance. If the pad is unfamiliar then plan for the worst case in the "best guess" prevailing conditions.
And on approach your ROD after the loss of translation lift should be well under control at around 200 feet per minute.
Not wishing to start a thread on unknown landing site/Mountain ops.
E86
Consult the RFM to determine a/c performance. If the pad is unfamiliar then plan for the worst case in the "best guess" prevailing conditions.
And on approach your ROD after the loss of translation lift should be well under control at around 200 feet per minute.
Not wishing to start a thread on unknown landing site/Mountain ops.
E86
"Regardless of the type of approach you chose to fly your preflight planning should take into account questions as to whether the termination will be IGE or OGE.
Consult the RFM to determine a/c performance. If the pad is unfamiliar then plan for the worst case in the "best guess" prevailing conditions.
And on approach your ROD after the loss of translation lift should be well under control at around 200 feet per minute."
Gosh you are a serious chap.............
Consult the RFM to determine a/c performance. If the pad is unfamiliar then plan for the worst case in the "best guess" prevailing conditions.
And on approach your ROD after the loss of translation lift should be well under control at around 200 feet per minute."
Gosh you are a serious chap.............
If the group will allow a bit of thread drift...
Eagle86 is absolutely right. The time to start thinking about your next landing is before pulling pitch on the takeoff that will lead to it. I mean, let's face it, most helicopter flights are not hours and hours long. I don't want to sound arrogant, but if I'm headed for an off-airport landing, I definitely think about all of the factors that will come into play before I ever get in the air. It helps if I've been there before, so I can visualize the different approach paths and angles I might have to use when I arrive.
One of the things that makes airline flying so safe is the repeatability and consistency of their operations. As much as possible, everything is planned out in advance so there should be few (if any) surprises. Nice and predictable...and boring. By contrast and out of necessity, a lot of what we helicopter pilots do is an improvisation. Instead of landing on big, long runways where we know the wind and other conditions well in advance, we arrive over our intended LZ and then have to decide how we're going to get down there and land. I'm not a big fan of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along school of helicopter flying. What we do in our end of the industry may never be as predictable as airline flying, but I like to keep the amount of improvising I do down to a minimum.
Eagle86 is absolutely right. The time to start thinking about your next landing is before pulling pitch on the takeoff that will lead to it. I mean, let's face it, most helicopter flights are not hours and hours long. I don't want to sound arrogant, but if I'm headed for an off-airport landing, I definitely think about all of the factors that will come into play before I ever get in the air. It helps if I've been there before, so I can visualize the different approach paths and angles I might have to use when I arrive.
One of the things that makes airline flying so safe is the repeatability and consistency of their operations. As much as possible, everything is planned out in advance so there should be few (if any) surprises. Nice and predictable...and boring. By contrast and out of necessity, a lot of what we helicopter pilots do is an improvisation. Instead of landing on big, long runways where we know the wind and other conditions well in advance, we arrive over our intended LZ and then have to decide how we're going to get down there and land. I'm not a big fan of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along school of helicopter flying. What we do in our end of the industry may never be as predictable as airline flying, but I like to keep the amount of improvising I do down to a minimum.
Georg1na - thing is, if all helicopter pilots did as Eagle 86 and FH1100 suggest, we would have far fewer accidents and incidents to discuss on these pages. Sadly, it would seem they do not.
Helicopter flying is fun, for the most part, but that doesn't mean you should just cuff it once you have your licence. Performance and pre-flight planning is in the syllabus for a reason and not just so you have something to swot up on for a checkride.
Helicopter flying is fun, for the most part, but that doesn't mean you should just cuff it once you have your licence. Performance and pre-flight planning is in the syllabus for a reason and not just so you have something to swot up on for a checkride.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
But if you ever tried that in my job, your next trip would be on foot with a P45 in your hand.
Wingovers, as much fun as they are, pale into insignificance beside loops, barrel rolls and back flips in a Lynx
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
