Chas Sheriff's 407 Mishap
Yet the 365 handled exactly like the sim with regard to TR control failures so Airbus/Aerospatiale must have got something right.
Disregarding training in the basic techniques because the sim isn't exactly like the aircraft is more dangerous than believing everything the sim can do will be exactly representative of the real aircraft.
If on the day - heaven forbid it happens - you have a real failure and the aircraft doesn't behave exactly like the sim, then chances are you will at least have a reasonable idea of how to deal with it rather than none at all if your training organisation has completely disregarded such scenarios.
Disregarding training in the basic techniques because the sim isn't exactly like the aircraft is more dangerous than believing everything the sim can do will be exactly representative of the real aircraft.
If on the day - heaven forbid it happens - you have a real failure and the aircraft doesn't behave exactly like the sim, then chances are you will at least have a reasonable idea of how to deal with it rather than none at all if your training organisation has completely disregarded such scenarios.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Yet the 365 handled exactly like the sim with regard to TR control failures so Airbus/Aerospatiale must have got something right.
...
...
It wasn't the Airbus sim at Mariagne but the Heli-Union sim at Angouleme - probably the same data set though.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Yet the 365 handled exactly like the sim with regard to TR control failures so Airbus/Aerospatiale must have got something right.
Disregarding training in the basic techniques because the sim isn't exactly like the aircraft is more dangerous than believing everything the sim can do will be exactly representative of the real aircraft.
If on the day - heaven forbid it happens - you have a real failure and the aircraft doesn't behave exactly like the sim, then chances are you will at least have a reasonable idea of how to deal with it rather than none at all if your training organisation has completely disregarded such scenarios.
Disregarding training in the basic techniques because the sim isn't exactly like the aircraft is more dangerous than believing everything the sim can do will be exactly representative of the real aircraft.
If on the day - heaven forbid it happens - you have a real failure and the aircraft doesn't behave exactly like the sim, then chances are you will at least have a reasonable idea of how to deal with it rather than none at all if your training organisation has completely disregarded such scenarios.
I understand the point made in reference to Sim shortcomings. It’s obvious when you’re in the Sim when some modelling doesn’t feel right. Often I find comparison to rotor droop on auto entry vs recovery doesn’t feel right.
Surely jammed pedal from control been locked is not too hard to emulate. After all in singles it is simulated by the IP fixing their feet on the pedals and not moving them. Incidentally that is quite hard to not instinctively do while close to the ground and not straight.
It is not to hard to verify if it’s like the actual aircraft. I’ve done simulated jams in the actual 76 and the sim felt exactly the same to me.
Happy to be educated if I’m wrong?
I understand completely T/R failure is a different ball game and is theoretical with test pilot input.
Surely jammed pedal from control been locked is not too hard to emulate. After all in singles it is simulated by the IP fixing their feet on the pedals and not moving them. Incidentally that is quite hard to not instinctively do while close to the ground and not straight.
It is not to hard to verify if it’s like the actual aircraft. I’ve done simulated jams in the actual 76 and the sim felt exactly the same to me.
Happy to be educated if I’m wrong?
I understand completely T/R failure is a different ball game and is theoretical with test pilot input.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
SLFMS,
Of course to some extent it can certainly be practiced in the real aircraft but I expect that you’ve not tried doing it with anywhere near full pedal offset (for example, the Puma tail rotor range in pitch is plus 35 degrees to minus 17).
But it’s good that you know the principles of how to deal with it.
The RAF began using a Puma simulator (which was actually a AS332 Super Puma model owned by Helikopter Services at Stavanger, rather than a more representative HC1) following a fatal accident during a civilian engine failure practice. Until then we used to load the aircraft to MAUW using a floor frame and lead weights and pull throttles all the way back, both in forward flight and in the high hover (the sortie was known as “Swoops and droops”). There were quite a few close calls and the civilian accident was the final straw. An ex Puma squadron boss, who had always been against the way the RAF carried out these practices, got himself promoted and into the office which made these decisions. I think he was right. I once experienced quite a close call myself when a squadron instructor ran the undercarriage through a crop of cabbage after a flare recovery during his demo and flared too low. A MAUW running landing at 40 kts into a soft field would have been interesting….we only just got away with it.
Tail rotor malfunctions training was added to the syllabus quite early because RAF students went to the simulator before flying the actual aircraft. It was used as a procedure and emergencies trainer and was far from representative of RAF aircraft because the cockpit was totally different and the actual aircraft are physically different.
Of course to some extent it can certainly be practiced in the real aircraft but I expect that you’ve not tried doing it with anywhere near full pedal offset (for example, the Puma tail rotor range in pitch is plus 35 degrees to minus 17).
But it’s good that you know the principles of how to deal with it.
The RAF began using a Puma simulator (which was actually a AS332 Super Puma model owned by Helikopter Services at Stavanger, rather than a more representative HC1) following a fatal accident during a civilian engine failure practice. Until then we used to load the aircraft to MAUW using a floor frame and lead weights and pull throttles all the way back, both in forward flight and in the high hover (the sortie was known as “Swoops and droops”). There were quite a few close calls and the civilian accident was the final straw. An ex Puma squadron boss, who had always been against the way the RAF carried out these practices, got himself promoted and into the office which made these decisions. I think he was right. I once experienced quite a close call myself when a squadron instructor ran the undercarriage through a crop of cabbage after a flare recovery during his demo and flared too low. A MAUW running landing at 40 kts into a soft field would have been interesting….we only just got away with it.
Tail rotor malfunctions training was added to the syllabus quite early because RAF students went to the simulator before flying the actual aircraft. It was used as a procedure and emergencies trainer and was far from representative of RAF aircraft because the cockpit was totally different and the actual aircraft are physically different.
Shy Torque that sounds like a good decision to me re the fully loaded flights. I imagine brown pant moments were fairly common.
You’re right about the pedals not been at full deflection. I’ve always thought that’s a different scenario and recovery is go to be difficult or near impossible. The 169 at the football field didn’t have much of a chance. Assuming pedal doesn’t hard over for failure I’ve always considered moderate jams more realistic as full deflection is uncommon for the vast majority of flights. Some types for control linkage failure will go to neutral position.
One thing I have always wanted to experiment with is cross wind with jams in heavier aircraft. In light pistons and light turbines the wind on the left(anticlockwise) makes a huge difference to the run on speed for a right jam. I’ve always wondered how effective it is in larger aircraft.
that’s something I don’t think the Sim models well it just seems to factor airspeed over the nose.
You’re right about the pedals not been at full deflection. I’ve always thought that’s a different scenario and recovery is go to be difficult or near impossible. The 169 at the football field didn’t have much of a chance. Assuming pedal doesn’t hard over for failure I’ve always considered moderate jams more realistic as full deflection is uncommon for the vast majority of flights. Some types for control linkage failure will go to neutral position.
One thing I have always wanted to experiment with is cross wind with jams in heavier aircraft. In light pistons and light turbines the wind on the left(anticlockwise) makes a huge difference to the run on speed for a right jam. I’ve always wondered how effective it is in larger aircraft.
that’s something I don’t think the Sim models well it just seems to factor airspeed over the nose.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
Yes, but “Lucky left / Rotten right” as some say, only works for anti clockwise rotors. Which is why I always referred to the retreating blade side as being the safe side for offsetting the nose in the unlucky event of…
Throughout my RW career (now done, apart from the odd trip) I regularly changed to and from aircraft with MR blades that rotated in opposite directions (Sikorsky Aerosptiale/Westlands - Sikorsky - Aerospatiale- Sikorsky - so I always knew it was important for me to remember what was what!
Throughout my RW career (now done, apart from the odd trip) I regularly changed to and from aircraft with MR blades that rotated in opposite directions (Sikorsky Aerosptiale/Westlands - Sikorsky - Aerospatiale- Sikorsky - so I always knew it was important for me to remember what was what!
SLFMS - with larger aircraft there is often more fuselage area for a crosswind to affect and in some RFMs the drills encourage a crosswind approach with the wind from the retreating side to aid directional control.
Shy lucky left rotten right is what I’ve always used too but not something that works well for French Helicopters….
Crab while the surface area is much larger so is the torque reaction on larger helicopters. I’d like to play with it a bit as I did in singles but can’t see that happening any time soon. I suspect it is type variable.
Crab while the surface area is much larger so is the torque reaction on larger helicopters. I’d like to play with it a bit as I did in singles but can’t see that happening any time soon. I suspect it is type variable.
Fair point - you are also dealing with twins that often don't have throttles on the collective so some of the finessing you might do in a single is difficult to do.
I have tried doing it single engine in a twin with the remaining engine in manual control for fast running landings but not really a realistic option single pilot.
With stuck pedals in higher pitch settings we used to look at decreasing NR to reduce the TR thrust as well - didn't try that in the aircraft though.
I have tried doing it single engine in a twin with the remaining engine in manual control for fast running landings but not really a realistic option single pilot.
With stuck pedals in higher pitch settings we used to look at decreasing NR to reduce the TR thrust as well - didn't try that in the aircraft though.
It took some gentle manipulation of one of the roof-mounted throttles on the S76 to keep it straight on the (simulated) runway. Not too difficult at all. But it was a simulation, in the real event the pilot might be reluctant to take his hand off the collective.
