Engine offs to the ground
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy Landings!
Never had the donkey quit on me yet, but I'm VERY confident I'd get it on the ground in one piece cos - like you I suspect - I was taught engine offs to the ground from day one. Yes, there was plenty of 500ft recoveries in the local area, but every other landing I ever made during training was to the ground.
Reference Shaun's grass-v-tarmac thing, above, I also got to do high speed powered run-ons on smooth concrete in a range of MD's at the factory as part of some type training, and I can tell you nothing builds confidence like actually hitting the ground again and again and again. Get some in, I say!
Reference Shaun's grass-v-tarmac thing, above, I also got to do high speed powered run-ons on smooth concrete in a range of MD's at the factory as part of some type training, and I can tell you nothing builds confidence like actually hitting the ground again and again and again. Get some in, I say!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South East England
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan the Man
Dan,
Your beginning to worry me,
Next time you use one of my machines, I'll come with you !
Quite right though. So you knacker the cross tube, So what. That can be replaced.
Your beginning to worry me,
Next time you use one of my machines, I'll come with you !
Quite right though. So you knacker the cross tube, So what. That can be replaced.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eothg.
I am not very good at this lark, currently, maybe from what I have read in 5000 hours I will be ok, however, with my 20 odd hours and about 8 engine off landings to the ground, I will tell you of my experiences, first time, "that is mad!!!!" second time "ok let me try" third time "mmmm,I do not think I could do that." ect ect 7th time " I think i could do this" 8th time " Maybe not" Anyway, I feel a lot more confident of my instructors ( mad as they are ) and I hope that one day I could save my aircraft, myself and my passengers because of this early training.
p.s A test pilot in the H500 I was learning in said quite clearly to me, "engine off " I said "what did you say" he said "never mind"
i.e I am dead.
p.s A test pilot in the H500 I was learning in said quite clearly to me, "engine off " I said "what did you say" he said "never mind"
i.e I am dead.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn Coyle
Oh..how wrong you can be..............
Try landing a heavy [or light] B412 / 212 on the summer tarmacs of the mid west....
The skids do indeed indent and spread the hot soft black bitumen.....and we were just landing for refueling......and cost our owner heaps of $$$$ in tarmac repairs.
Yet alone if we hit the runway surface with some downward vertical force and slid a few yards or so!!!................many more $$$$$
[However I do understand your point........landing on a hard surface is smart and less painful]
But of course the BHT School use Tungsten Carbide shoes on their skids to slide on their prepared hard surfaces.........no one elese has the luxury of knowing where and when their emergency landing will occur.......thats only training not reality.
However, please don't misunderstand my comments.........all OEL or NEL should be made to the hard runway ....if possible!!!!
Try landing a heavy [or light] B412 / 212 on the summer tarmacs of the mid west....
The skids do indeed indent and spread the hot soft black bitumen.....and we were just landing for refueling......and cost our owner heaps of $$$$ in tarmac repairs.
Yet alone if we hit the runway surface with some downward vertical force and slid a few yards or so!!!................many more $$$$$
[However I do understand your point........landing on a hard surface is smart and less painful]
But of course the BHT School use Tungsten Carbide shoes on their skids to slide on their prepared hard surfaces.........no one elese has the luxury of knowing where and when their emergency landing will occur.......thats only training not reality.
However, please don't misunderstand my comments.........all OEL or NEL should be made to the hard runway ....if possible!!!!
Last edited by Old Man Rotor; 15th Feb 2003 at 22:51.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EOLs
EOLs, or as we say Touch down autos. Quite honestly, I am not convinced of the argument that they are necessary. The skill is conducting Practice Forced Landing (PFL) ie positioning the aircraft "into the hole in the trees". The other skill necessary is to make the landing survivorable once there. These actions can be trained with power terms (practicing when to commence the flare and at what rate). The fact that you intial (pitch pull) a little high/low or overlevel or touch down cocked off -who cares? If you can't make your spot its all a waste of time.
This is the standard that is accepted in the military with highly trained proffesional pilots. I would be suprised if your average Joe civvy would have the capacity to develop skill sets to be consistently touching down without assistance. And if they do concentrate on that limited aspect of the touch down what about all the other stuff associated with positioning the aircraft.
I would fail a guy in a heartbeat if he couldn't get within 2-3 aircraft lengths of the touch down point. If he overleveled or I needed to take over at the pitch pull - I don't give a rats ar.e.
As for skidways. They are more forgiving but my experience with the US army is that they have a poor habit (negative habit transfer) of lowering the lever on touch down. It makes you stop expeditiously but we had one Sepo exchange guy damage one of our aircraft (even after being here for a couple of years) because he lowered the lever on "sod".
This is the standard that is accepted in the military with highly trained proffesional pilots. I would be suprised if your average Joe civvy would have the capacity to develop skill sets to be consistently touching down without assistance. And if they do concentrate on that limited aspect of the touch down what about all the other stuff associated with positioning the aircraft.
I would fail a guy in a heartbeat if he couldn't get within 2-3 aircraft lengths of the touch down point. If he overleveled or I needed to take over at the pitch pull - I don't give a rats ar.e.
As for skidways. They are more forgiving but my experience with the US army is that they have a poor habit (negative habit transfer) of lowering the lever on touch down. It makes you stop expeditiously but we had one Sepo exchange guy damage one of our aircraft (even after being here for a couple of years) because he lowered the lever on "sod".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh! Oh!
Reading all the previous letters I see that there are two fields of opinion, those in favour and those against, obviously.
For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL. If 50 hours is not enough then I sugest that more hours are required by that student. As an instructor you have the 'duty' to perform as an instructor to the requirements of the syllabus as laid down in whichever authority you are operating. If you are unconfortable doing engine off landings then I can only suggest that yiou requalify after suitable retraining.
The R22 is a poor training helicopter as there are numerous limitations in regard to safety to which as an instructor you ought to be able to 'tune' your EOL's so that the EOL is safely conducted. I say 'tune' as a way of deciding the best weight/weather/ground conditions to best attain confident and contro;;ed landings. I do not believe that closing the engine down completely is necessary, sufficien that the throttle is closed to ground idle/idle once the area of the landing can be safely reached.
It amazes me that students are given the impression that all they require is 50 hours flying time to attain their PPL/H. How on earth can anyone know whether that prospective student has the ability to achieve that goal. I suspect that the training for EOL's is avoided until far too late in the training sequence to give confident handling at the Flight Test stage. I would recommend that instructors feed in EOL's at regular intervals and certainly before the students first solo. OK at this stage the student has only 'followed through' but should have the method in mind should things go quiet during the first solo.
Experienced instructors ought to be able to perform EOL's onto grass surfaces within the sloping ground limitations of the type of helicopter flown.
It's all to do with training and technique.
For those making regular EOL's with their students, I commend you and would feel safer with their students flying me.
Reading all the previous letters I see that there are two fields of opinion, those in favour and those against, obviously.
For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL. If 50 hours is not enough then I sugest that more hours are required by that student. As an instructor you have the 'duty' to perform as an instructor to the requirements of the syllabus as laid down in whichever authority you are operating. If you are unconfortable doing engine off landings then I can only suggest that yiou requalify after suitable retraining.
The R22 is a poor training helicopter as there are numerous limitations in regard to safety to which as an instructor you ought to be able to 'tune' your EOL's so that the EOL is safely conducted. I say 'tune' as a way of deciding the best weight/weather/ground conditions to best attain confident and contro;;ed landings. I do not believe that closing the engine down completely is necessary, sufficien that the throttle is closed to ground idle/idle once the area of the landing can be safely reached.
It amazes me that students are given the impression that all they require is 50 hours flying time to attain their PPL/H. How on earth can anyone know whether that prospective student has the ability to achieve that goal. I suspect that the training for EOL's is avoided until far too late in the training sequence to give confident handling at the Flight Test stage. I would recommend that instructors feed in EOL's at regular intervals and certainly before the students first solo. OK at this stage the student has only 'followed through' but should have the method in mind should things go quiet during the first solo.
Experienced instructors ought to be able to perform EOL's onto grass surfaces within the sloping ground limitations of the type of helicopter flown.
It's all to do with training and technique.
For those making regular EOL's with their students, I commend you and would feel safer with their students flying me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: england
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
posted 17th February 2003 15:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh! Oh!
For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL.
SURELY THE ONUS IS ON THE EXAMINER NOT THE BRAND NEW AFIC OR FI(R) AS IT IS NOW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh! Oh!
For those who avoid making EOLs you could well be placed in the position of answering to a court why your student was not capable of reaching the minumum standard of licensing upon attaining the PPL.
SURELY THE ONUS IS ON THE EXAMINER NOT THE BRAND NEW AFIC OR FI(R) AS IT IS NOW.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Bloater has hit the nail on the head.
Going through the motions of an EOL is like nearly having sex, you haven't done it so you don't know what it feels like and you don't know how the machine reacts and you don't know how to react to it.
Learning to autorotate with a power recovery is fine, but is NO substitute for learning to land the machine with no engine power available whether on grass or a hard surface ( never done that one..too loud!).
How many people do you know that have never even put on full brakes in their car ( emergency stop) and when they have to CAN'T!! and that happens every day to thousands of people.
If a flying instuctor does not even feel comfortable doing EOL's then I question his/her right to be one....sorry.
Going through the motions of an EOL is like nearly having sex, you haven't done it so you don't know what it feels like and you don't know how the machine reacts and you don't know how to react to it.
Learning to autorotate with a power recovery is fine, but is NO substitute for learning to land the machine with no engine power available whether on grass or a hard surface ( never done that one..too loud!).
How many people do you know that have never even put on full brakes in their car ( emergency stop) and when they have to CAN'T!! and that happens every day to thousands of people.
If a flying instuctor does not even feel comfortable doing EOL's then I question his/her right to be one....sorry.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Afrika sometimes
Age: 68
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SURELY THE ONUS IS ON THE EXAMINER NOT THE BRAND NEW AFIC OR FI(R) AS IT IS NOW.
It is the duty of the instructor to advise his/her student whether they have reached that standard after the MINIMUM 50 hours requirement or whether they require further training. After all, the instructor's job is not just to teach soemthing parrot fashion, but to evaluate the student's performance and make judgements as to what additional training is required. If the instructor can't do that, then how can the student know how he/she is progressing? The examiner only comes in to the picture after the instructor is satisfied that the student has reached the required standardv and is ready for the flight test.
I also agree with Tail Bloater that EOL's should be introduced as early as possible in the course. I would not allow a student to go solo unless I was confident of his/her ability to be able to get the aircraft to a point where the landing should be survivable (albeit with the aircraft written off) as that is my duty to my student.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I currently teach EOLs at CFS Shawbury. Experienced (2000+) pilots go solo EOLs after approx 3hrs concentrated practice. They can hit a large field easily, but would struggle to make a nominated point consistently. Basic students? By the end of the course I have a checklist- 50/50 if they make nominated field + If they flare at the right height. 80/20 if they check the lever at a sensible height. !00% if they level and cushion. ie a sensible flare increases survivability by a huge margin. The rest? Panic, shock, disbelief, etc etc will erode a lot of their instinct and training, however we must still do the training to give pilots every chance. Teaching EOLs is fantastic, if instructors don't want to do it- quit now!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regular practice is key. I used to do ab-initio and commercial instruction, checking and testing on light singles of various types. Never forgetting the reality that we were throwing the beast at the ground, I used to get a real buzz from being able to demo and teach these. I also think it gave me a level of competence and confidence in being able to deal with an engine failure which helped my general flying.
I have now "progressed" to just flying twins and (apart from 6 monthly checks) doing only line flying with no opportunity to drop in the odd auto even. I really feel out of touch and am now relying on the very low probability of double engine failure. I can't even go and do some single engine stuff for fun, cos I am tied into a Flight Time Scheme that precludes me from doing other flying. A positive contribution to flight safety- I think not.
TC reminded me of this with his reminiscences.
Enjoy them while you can!
I have now "progressed" to just flying twins and (apart from 6 monthly checks) doing only line flying with no opportunity to drop in the odd auto even. I really feel out of touch and am now relying on the very low probability of double engine failure. I can't even go and do some single engine stuff for fun, cos I am tied into a Flight Time Scheme that precludes me from doing other flying. A positive contribution to flight safety- I think not.
TC reminded me of this with his reminiscences.
Enjoy them while you can!
Hi there all of you!
I'm currently teaching in Canada, where we are required to teach full-ons, but it really is up to the examiner to decide if he wants a full on demonstrated. I have finally gotten back into the habit of doing them all the way, and I really think they will give the student the edge needed to survive or even save the aircraft in a sticky situation (when the donkey leaves). However, I'm more than reluctant to send my 100 hr. student out with the examiner, regardles of the examiners experience, since he does not regularly fly "my" machine. Now I only have one machine, and with about 1000 hrs in it, I know fairly well what it does, but why should I let this fresh new student and the examiner out to do touchdowns in my only machine. Only last year did Transport Canada and a student roll a machine on a flight test, yet they still want them done on flight tests. I agree with all of you that these should be thaught to students, but personnally I'm never far off the controls during this, because I've personnally seen the end result of botched full ons.
Anyhow, this is just my opinion, and I realize this is not much of a pot stirrer, I enjoy reading all these threads, they give me (as an instructor) a lot of insight.
Shawn Coyle
Love your book (art and science...)
and would really love to come out to Mojave to do the Test pilot program, but then there is money...
I'm currently teaching in Canada, where we are required to teach full-ons, but it really is up to the examiner to decide if he wants a full on demonstrated. I have finally gotten back into the habit of doing them all the way, and I really think they will give the student the edge needed to survive or even save the aircraft in a sticky situation (when the donkey leaves). However, I'm more than reluctant to send my 100 hr. student out with the examiner, regardles of the examiners experience, since he does not regularly fly "my" machine. Now I only have one machine, and with about 1000 hrs in it, I know fairly well what it does, but why should I let this fresh new student and the examiner out to do touchdowns in my only machine. Only last year did Transport Canada and a student roll a machine on a flight test, yet they still want them done on flight tests. I agree with all of you that these should be thaught to students, but personnally I'm never far off the controls during this, because I've personnally seen the end result of botched full ons.
Anyhow, this is just my opinion, and I realize this is not much of a pot stirrer, I enjoy reading all these threads, they give me (as an instructor) a lot of insight.
Shawn Coyle
Love your book (art and science...)
and would really love to come out to Mojave to do the Test pilot program, but then there is money...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Winnie, I apologise. Never really thought about the aircraft owners, us military types are spoiled with a hangar full to bend. Difficult one really, pity the examining board didn't have to provide the machine. I wonder if they would change the rules then................
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winnie,
We have a similar problem in the UK with the R22. Examiners for the PPL(H) can be any Flight Examiner (type rated and in practice of course). Most significant schools have such a bod either on the staff or known to them. He is current on the R22 and is in the mainstream of ab-initio instruction, so no problem.
Unfortunately, the CAA insist that, for the commercial flight test, a CAA staff examiner is used. You don't get to choose. For a while this was pretty much always one person. Although this person had significant experience, it did not include R22 flying or instruction of ab-initio civi students. A number of R22s have been damaged during flight test EOLS with him as the PIC. Indeed, I have been told that one school has simply banned him from testing on their aircraft.
Looking further back into the past, there was a similar spate of damage accidents with another CAA staff examiner.
Currency and recent practice is key, no matter who you are.
The JAR FCL flight test list is clear that EOL "touchdowns" are a requirement for a licence issue flight test and indeed for the licence proficiency check (on singles). I don't think this is wrong myself, but I do think it is wrong for any pilot to undertake a flight exercise as PIC when he is not current and in practice himself, no matter who he works for.
We have a similar problem in the UK with the R22. Examiners for the PPL(H) can be any Flight Examiner (type rated and in practice of course). Most significant schools have such a bod either on the staff or known to them. He is current on the R22 and is in the mainstream of ab-initio instruction, so no problem.
Unfortunately, the CAA insist that, for the commercial flight test, a CAA staff examiner is used. You don't get to choose. For a while this was pretty much always one person. Although this person had significant experience, it did not include R22 flying or instruction of ab-initio civi students. A number of R22s have been damaged during flight test EOLS with him as the PIC. Indeed, I have been told that one school has simply banned him from testing on their aircraft.
Looking further back into the past, there was a similar spate of damage accidents with another CAA staff examiner.
Currency and recent practice is key, no matter who you are.
The JAR FCL flight test list is clear that EOL "touchdowns" are a requirement for a licence issue flight test and indeed for the licence proficiency check (on singles). I don't think this is wrong myself, but I do think it is wrong for any pilot to undertake a flight exercise as PIC when he is not current and in practice himself, no matter who he works for.
No names, no pack drill.
Depends on who you get to fly with on your commercial flight test. I had an ex-military bod, who tested me to the extent that he thought I was safe and competent to fly as a commercial pilot.
I was lucky. Any other examiner would have tested me longer, most likely with the same result. I think my school would have been happy with whatever my examiner had asked me to do - but then I've had similar feedback about this gent from other sources as well.
Depends on who you get to fly with on your commercial flight test. I had an ex-military bod, who tested me to the extent that he thought I was safe and competent to fly as a commercial pilot.
I was lucky. Any other examiner would have tested me longer, most likely with the same result. I think my school would have been happy with whatever my examiner had asked me to do - but then I've had similar feedback about this gent from other sources as well.
Check out the thread on the forced landing at the Finke Desert Race
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=134077
The company trains with full touch down autos and the pilot in this case is damned happy that this wasn't his first try.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=134077
The company trains with full touch down autos and the pilot in this case is damned happy that this wasn't his first try.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We teach full touch down autos to every student before we send them solo. There is no requirement in the USA for touch down autos, except CFI, but it makes sense to us to teach them. We are confident that all our students would make a reasonable job of it of the engine quits.
Of course, we fly Bell 47's so it is a bit of a non event.
Regards,
Chopperpilot47
Of course, we fly Bell 47's so it is a bit of a non event.
Regards,
Chopperpilot47
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 41
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my flight training we did every autorotation, regardless of if it was straight in or 180, in all wind conditions right to the ground. I'm very glad I did becuase alot happenes after the flare. A wise instructor once said, "if you arent going to make it, **** the spot, do a good auto" and I wouldn't understand that if I only knew how to get it to the flare.
My first job started with a check ride and an auto right to the ground. I got the job and others didn't. That should be reason enough alone.
My first job started with a check ride and an auto right to the ground. I got the job and others didn't. That should be reason enough alone.