Nepal AStar landing
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 768
Likes: 45
From: Montreal
Nepal AStar landing
AStar landing over control. Nepal
Why so many snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Wasn’t especially dusty, nor off level. Is nose up off-level not covered in training?
Why so many snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Wasn’t especially dusty, nor off level. Is nose up off-level not covered in training?
Last edited by malabo; 18th March 2026 at 17:14.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,373
Likes: 931
From: Den Haag
AStar landing over control. Nepal
Why so many snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Wasn’t especially dusty, nor off level. Is nose up off-level not covered in training?
Why so many snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? Wasn’t especially dusty, nor off level. Is nose up off-level not covered in training?
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
An extreme forward C of G would have prevented him from coming to the hover and he would have had a persistent forward drift.
It looks like he panicked when the tail went down further than he expected on the first attempt at landing and he shoved in a big forward cyclic input, nearly saved it and then got into a PIO
It looks like he panicked when the tail went down further than he expected on the first attempt at landing and he shoved in a big forward cyclic input, nearly saved it and then got into a PIO
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,373
Likes: 931
From: Den Haag
Originally Posted by [email protected]
An extreme forward C of G would have prevented him from coming to the hover and he would have had a persistent forward drift.
It looks like he panicked when the tail went down further than he expected on the first attempt at landing and he shoved in a big forward cyclic input, nearly saved it and then got into a PIO
It looks like he panicked when the tail went down further than he expected on the first attempt at landing and he shoved in a big forward cyclic input, nearly saved it and then got into a PIO
Looks like a seat-cyclic interface issue to me.
Joined: Jan 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 344
Likes: 105
From: Sweden
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 557
Likes: 27
From: At home
Originally Posted by [email protected]
An extreme forward C of G would have prevented him from coming to the hover and he would have had a persistent forward drift.
It looks like he panicked when the tail went down further than he expected on the first attempt at landing and he shoved in a big forward cyclic input, nearly saved it and then got into a PIO
It looks like he panicked when the tail went down further than he expected on the first attempt at landing and he shoved in a big forward cyclic input, nearly saved it and then got into a PIO
Tailwind will add to over controlling, as seen in the Fiji 350 in 2015: Fiji crash, and last years EC130 in Michigan EC130 crash. Essentially the same ''pilot-finesse'' in these cases.
These machines are easy to load for a fwd CG and handles quite well with it at the limit if you know what you're doing, until it bites. Anyone that has flown heli-ski or any taxi with 2-place bench up front will know what this is.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,082
Likes: 2,939
From: Ontario, Canada
Though I have never been out of control while flying an AS350, being as they are so light to fly, I can imagine that once control is lost, between becoming disoriented, and the helicopter being so "reactive" to overcontrolling, a really bad outcome would be easy to create.
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 446
Likes: 100
From: South East Asia
Agreed, that wobbling as you near touch down is tough to overcome as a beginner to the AS350.
I came to the conclusion that it is very much induced by the pedal input, if you are a bit sloppy and tend to over control the tail (that is easy because the tail rotor is very reactive),
Then you end up with some lateral cross coupling that messes up your lateral stability, and the squirrel gets all squirly on you.
that leads to a very disorderly touchdown, Do not linger next to the ground and keep your pedal input very small, that was my conclusion during the type rating.
I came to the conclusion that it is very much induced by the pedal input, if you are a bit sloppy and tend to over control the tail (that is easy because the tail rotor is very reactive),
Then you end up with some lateral cross coupling that messes up your lateral stability, and the squirrel gets all squirly on you.
that leads to a very disorderly touchdown, Do not linger next to the ground and keep your pedal input very small, that was my conclusion during the type rating.
Last edited by Pilot DAR; 20th March 2026 at 13:01. Reason: typo
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,082
Likes: 2,939
From: Ontario, Canada
Do not linger next to the ground and keep your pedal input very small,
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 90
From: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
The 350/355 should be flown with some cyclic friction on, even to the point where you get tired of pushing it around which is a solution for "stick stirrers", and should have a minimum friction which gets overlooked, if the cyclic falls over when you let it go you have some serious issues that should be addressed. Pretty sure this even mentioned in the RFM. The rotor has a pretty big hinge offset and has high control power and is not decoupled for movement between the frame and the dynamics and you will start up a resonance that people fight with. Don't move the cyclic and the aircraft will sit there all day on it's own. M/R balance can also have an effect on the coupling, I have had a 355 with extremely good balance that would hover on it's own without cyclic input for up to 45 seconds. The location of the TR relative to the main rotor is influenced by the wake propagation from the MR which probably misses the TR OGE and influences it IGE as the wake changes from convergence to divergence with interesting part being the transition between the two as for a fixed TR pitch the thrust will change when fed from the wake which ends up with yaw and secondary roll about the vertical C of M. (The vertical distance from the TR to the rotor head is a myth) So to account for that you just need to keep the desired heading. Address these points and these aircraft are easy to fly and land smoothly.
In the video this is just dynamic pitch over i.e. rollover in a different plane. Panic when the aircraft pitches back with FWD cyclic which has way more travel than AFT from neutral and with inertia the C of M gets FWD of the ground contact point and you have less AFT than FWD travel it isn't coming back and all bets are off because physics always prevails.
In the video this is just dynamic pitch over i.e. rollover in a different plane. Panic when the aircraft pitches back with FWD cyclic which has way more travel than AFT from neutral and with inertia the C of M gets FWD of the ground contact point and you have less AFT than FWD travel it isn't coming back and all bets are off because physics always prevails.
