Engine offs to the ground
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CGWRA
i think we must have had the same instructor! i seem to remember that exact quote being told to me a few times when i was just eeever so slightly off my spot while i was training...
i think we must have had the same instructor! i seem to remember that exact quote being told to me a few times when i was just eeever so slightly off my spot while i was training...
Guest
Posts: n/a
I had an ex Navy instructor in the early nineties who was nuts about autos to the ground, and his enthusiasm eventually rubbed off on me. About four years after I qualified he had his sixth genuine engine problem (first since the navy) in an R22 on a recovery from practise auto away from the field. Because it wasn't the nice smooth grass of the airfield, he tipped it over on landing, wrecked the machine but walked away with his student. The point there is that I would have backed him over anyone to land intact, but even he couldn't do it on a less than perfect surface.
The next point is that no matter how well trained the PPL is, I can't believe that anyone on this forum would recommend that PPLs practise EOLs on their own after qualification. In any case, no school would ever allow self fly hirers to do that. No matter how well greased the skills are at qualification, things will quickly get rusty. I reckon that the chances of a 1-300hr PPL pulling off an EOL away from an airfield without damaging the machine are less than 10%, even though the chances of walking away would probably be well in excess of 90%.
So let's get real here and lose some of the testosterone. We're training people for a vanishingly small probability event, the likely end point of which is a wrecked machine but safe passengers. Therefore I suggest that a sensible compromise is the approach we take at our school.
By our own (ie the instructors) choice only the head of training does EOLs, and he takes students who are proficient at hover recoveries for a concentrated session of full down autos before the first solo. This additionally serves as a very handy progress and standardisation check and quality control point.
Because he does all the EOLs he is very proficient and current, but he still has his fair share of heart attacks and some (thankfully minor) machine damage. Liability of the school and the instructors is managed, and the students are 'appropriately' trained. He then picks up EOLs again in the pre-GFT revision sessions, and post qualification in each LPC.
I'd like to do EOLs myself more often, but I don't want the liability, and if I'm honest with myself it's the reputational liability more than the financial which bothers me. It's a very small industry.
The next point is that no matter how well trained the PPL is, I can't believe that anyone on this forum would recommend that PPLs practise EOLs on their own after qualification. In any case, no school would ever allow self fly hirers to do that. No matter how well greased the skills are at qualification, things will quickly get rusty. I reckon that the chances of a 1-300hr PPL pulling off an EOL away from an airfield without damaging the machine are less than 10%, even though the chances of walking away would probably be well in excess of 90%.
So let's get real here and lose some of the testosterone. We're training people for a vanishingly small probability event, the likely end point of which is a wrecked machine but safe passengers. Therefore I suggest that a sensible compromise is the approach we take at our school.
By our own (ie the instructors) choice only the head of training does EOLs, and he takes students who are proficient at hover recoveries for a concentrated session of full down autos before the first solo. This additionally serves as a very handy progress and standardisation check and quality control point.
Because he does all the EOLs he is very proficient and current, but he still has his fair share of heart attacks and some (thankfully minor) machine damage. Liability of the school and the instructors is managed, and the students are 'appropriately' trained. He then picks up EOLs again in the pre-GFT revision sessions, and post qualification in each LPC.
I'd like to do EOLs myself more often, but I don't want the liability, and if I'm honest with myself it's the reputational liability more than the financial which bothers me. It's a very small industry.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 53
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trained out in the states, so will naturally be biased toward the way the training was carried out there. In 1995 when i trained, the autos were done to power recoveries at a 5 foot or so hover height. The only autos to the ground were done to with students who were doing their CFI course. On the other hand, as soon as autos were introduced to the PPL student, throttle chops without warning were also introduced - from my understanding something that isn't done in the UK so much.
The thinking behind this was that the entry to (or failure to enter) the auto is the thing that would be more likely to kill people. If a flare could be carried out to a power recover in the hover, then if it ever occured for real, the final 5 feet or so would be surviveable, hopefully with the aircraft still in one bit. This was thought to outwiegh the likely cost due to damage to aircraft if all practice autos were done to the ground.
I'm not sure what the actual stats are for comparing accidents involving engine failures between countries that put the emphasis on training for the unexpected engine failure, and those that emphasis the auto to the ground. Might be interesting to find out. I'd be inclined to think that the biggest killer would be caused by a failure to establish the auto quickly enough, and not be able to recover the decaying RRPM. As i said though, i'm biased toward the training system that i experienced.
The thinking behind this was that the entry to (or failure to enter) the auto is the thing that would be more likely to kill people. If a flare could be carried out to a power recover in the hover, then if it ever occured for real, the final 5 feet or so would be surviveable, hopefully with the aircraft still in one bit. This was thought to outwiegh the likely cost due to damage to aircraft if all practice autos were done to the ground.
I'm not sure what the actual stats are for comparing accidents involving engine failures between countries that put the emphasis on training for the unexpected engine failure, and those that emphasis the auto to the ground. Might be interesting to find out. I'd be inclined to think that the biggest killer would be caused by a failure to establish the auto quickly enough, and not be able to recover the decaying RRPM. As i said though, i'm biased toward the training system that i experienced.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an experienced instructor, I will not do EOLs to the ground in an R22, sure, I can do them, but it's just too easy to bend up the aircraft, get the sack, get a reputation etc. I will do them in the Schweizer with a student, because it's a much more forgiving aircraft for it.
Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare, you're much more likely to get some sort of malfunction/chip light/partial power loss, than a full-blown engine failure.
Just look at the PPL accident stats, it's -never- engine failures, it's always collision (sticking the tail into a fence etc), continued flight in crap weather (bad decision making), dynamic rollover, overpitching, VRS etc. You're much better off emphasising these things in training rather than doing autos over and over again.
Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare, you're much more likely to get some sort of malfunction/chip light/partial power loss, than a full-blown engine failure.
Just look at the PPL accident stats, it's -never- engine failures, it's always collision (sticking the tail into a fence etc), continued flight in crap weather (bad decision making), dynamic rollover, overpitching, VRS etc. You're much better off emphasising these things in training rather than doing autos over and over again.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mrs Miggin's
Age: 47
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
manfromuncle,
Would just like to say I agree with what you said and had the same ethos when I was instructing, I was always amazed how keen some people were to chuck the things at the ground. I would struggle to come up with more than a few cases of 22's having had an engine failure but can think of plenty of instances where machines were dinged practicing eol's. I also flew with plenty of people who didn't know how to re-act properly to something common like the clutch light staying on but thought they could do eol's well,when it turned out that the instructor had done most of the work and they just assumed they were s**t hot because so an so had done them all the time!
Would just like to say I agree with what you said and had the same ethos when I was instructing, I was always amazed how keen some people were to chuck the things at the ground. I would struggle to come up with more than a few cases of 22's having had an engine failure but can think of plenty of instances where machines were dinged practicing eol's. I also flew with plenty of people who didn't know how to re-act properly to something common like the clutch light staying on but thought they could do eol's well,when it turned out that the instructor had done most of the work and they just assumed they were s**t hot because so an so had done them all the time!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Frank Robinson said on the safety course that, at one point, so many people were crashing R22s during practice autos that he seriously wanted to ban people from doing autos in them!
I've lost count of the number of students who can enter an PFL fine, but can't pull a circuit breaker and do a power-on landing without stuffing the approach up (bad field, downwind, too fast, too much R.O.D.) etc.
Let's try to make training a bit more 'realistic' eh?
Also, I see a lot of PPL holders who still ask instructors to make decisions for them ("what do you think, is the weather ok?"). It's fine to take advice from instructors, but students really should be taught some decision making skills.
I've lost count of the number of students who can enter an PFL fine, but can't pull a circuit breaker and do a power-on landing without stuffing the approach up (bad field, downwind, too fast, too much R.O.D.) etc.
Let's try to make training a bit more 'realistic' eh?
Also, I see a lot of PPL holders who still ask instructors to make decisions for them ("what do you think, is the weather ok?"). It's fine to take advice from instructors, but students really should be taught some decision making skills.
EOL's. Do I?
Plenty of high time instructors have bent machines namely 22's doing EOL's. My own opinion is that the entry and descent is as important if not more than the touchdown. If you f*** up the entry in a 22 then forget the termination, however, if the entry and descent are good then provided you pull some sort of flare at the bottom you should be okay. You may have a heavy one or roll it over but you stand a very good chance of surviving.
I am not saying EOL's should not be practised but I like to broaden the horizon a bit and develop skills in all the areas. As an experienced instructor I have heard the answer "enter autorotation" to many questions posed to a student of what they would do if this happened or that happened. We all know that doing an auto to land is the last resort (after training) but from many students answers they would do an auto if a chip light came on.
How embarrasing would it be to f*** up an auto after having a chip light when you could have landed with the engine?
But that's my opinion. I am sure some R22 instructor who wears a helmet and plays top gun in his car will shoot me down.
I am not saying EOL's should not be practised but I like to broaden the horizon a bit and develop skills in all the areas. As an experienced instructor I have heard the answer "enter autorotation" to many questions posed to a student of what they would do if this happened or that happened. We all know that doing an auto to land is the last resort (after training) but from many students answers they would do an auto if a chip light came on.
How embarrasing would it be to f*** up an auto after having a chip light when you could have landed with the engine?
But that's my opinion. I am sure some R22 instructor who wears a helmet and plays top gun in his car will shoot me down.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auto's must be practiced from top to bottom. Granted it doesn't happen much statistically (spelled right) but when it does EVERY aspect of the auto is important right from entry, yaw stabilization, rpm good?... yes... find a spot...turn, adjust, turn etc. You can do all those correctly and find yourself over your spot but at 400 ft with no airspeed to generate RPM. Or be at your spot but with too much airspeed and end over end with all the requisite consequences. There are adjustments at the bottom that CAN be done, SHOULD be demonstrated. It is only in this way that the student can understand the repercussions for doing otherwise. eg You enter a perfect auto into an otherwise 10 kt wind with the idea of planting it on the numbers. At the bottom the wind gives out losing you 10 kts of energy. The instuctor takes adds assistance as needed and you the student find yourself skidding along the runway a little farther than usual. You ask "why?"...instructor explains...and you go "OH MY"!
I understand completely the desire to refrain from full-on auto's based on the idea of insurance, cost, damage to reputation etc. Especially if you are a private guy. But just think about the consequences if and when it happens and you're not current. The fact is the 22 is a cannonball in an auto but it is indeed a fact that you are indeed flying it. Learn it! Yes I
trained one.
I am also not an instructor. But in my initial and my annual recurrency I do ALOT of entries. I fly at least 10 right to the ground not including Hovers. As for the surprise, we NEVER chop, but enter gently...you are looking for a response after all from the student.
All training should be done with the idea of opening the students eyes to the possibility of something going wrong whether it be a chip lite, LTA, or engine failure. And every one of them should be demonstrated, discussed and eventually surprised...all to the ground...if the instructor deems the conditions suitable. Power Recoveries in the bush all the time though.
I've flown an A-Star for the last 3 yrs and have NEVER done a power recovery. My instructor expects me to land every one. And he's a third party trainer.
That saved my life last year at 300 ft with a longline. I was back to work in 5 hours with the same machine.
You are flying a helicopter ladies and gentleman and unlike a car you can't just pull over to the side of the road when things go wrong, or you run out of gas. It is sophisticated yet still made by humans. If you choose to fly at least give yourself the benefit of understanding how many ways it can go wrong. And that is what training is for. Risk...definately. But then you wouldn't want to fly one so much then would you.
Backwards
I understand completely the desire to refrain from full-on auto's based on the idea of insurance, cost, damage to reputation etc. Especially if you are a private guy. But just think about the consequences if and when it happens and you're not current. The fact is the 22 is a cannonball in an auto but it is indeed a fact that you are indeed flying it. Learn it! Yes I
trained one.
I am also not an instructor. But in my initial and my annual recurrency I do ALOT of entries. I fly at least 10 right to the ground not including Hovers. As for the surprise, we NEVER chop, but enter gently...you are looking for a response after all from the student.
All training should be done with the idea of opening the students eyes to the possibility of something going wrong whether it be a chip lite, LTA, or engine failure. And every one of them should be demonstrated, discussed and eventually surprised...all to the ground...if the instructor deems the conditions suitable. Power Recoveries in the bush all the time though.
I've flown an A-Star for the last 3 yrs and have NEVER done a power recovery. My instructor expects me to land every one. And he's a third party trainer.
That saved my life last year at 300 ft with a longline. I was back to work in 5 hours with the same machine.
You are flying a helicopter ladies and gentleman and unlike a car you can't just pull over to the side of the road when things go wrong, or you run out of gas. It is sophisticated yet still made by humans. If you choose to fly at least give yourself the benefit of understanding how many ways it can go wrong. And that is what training is for. Risk...definately. But then you wouldn't want to fly one so much then would you.
Backwards
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't done any ab-initio (or indeed single engine) instruction for a number of years. However, it used to be the case that in the UK it was a requirement of the syllabus for the PPL(H) that EOLs were included, and certainly for the CPL(H).
Has this changed?
If not, then surely the instructor should follow the syllabus and the examiner flight test according to it.
If you want the rules to change, then people should lobby for such a change.
Has this changed?
If not, then surely the instructor should follow the syllabus and the examiner flight test according to it.
If you want the rules to change, then people should lobby for such a change.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm from South Wales and I teach students to go all the way to the ground, it absolutely amazes me pplh's who have a licence and havn't been down to the ground in a full needle split engine at idle touch down they are always amazed !!! whether it be in a R22, R44 or what ever.
I had an engine stop in a 206 last year at 1500ft with 5 of us on board and succesfully carried out an eol at 40 knts to a runway with no dramas.
I definatley think all students should be at least shown what happens when you touch down with the engine at idle.
From my point of view I "warm up" to this event first namely by carrying out a number of run on landings to the area I intend to use, this verifies that the grass or what ever, is suitable then a number of throttle chops in the hover and finally engine failures in a hover taxi, all this before an actual engine off .
Most of the people I've flown with think they have been to the ground but when you question them after the event nearly all of them admit the instructor did'nt quite split the needles and did a semi power recovery run on landing !!!
I had an engine stop in a 206 last year at 1500ft with 5 of us on board and succesfully carried out an eol at 40 knts to a runway with no dramas.
I definatley think all students should be at least shown what happens when you touch down with the engine at idle.
From my point of view I "warm up" to this event first namely by carrying out a number of run on landings to the area I intend to use, this verifies that the grass or what ever, is suitable then a number of throttle chops in the hover and finally engine failures in a hover taxi, all this before an actual engine off .
Most of the people I've flown with think they have been to the ground but when you question them after the event nearly all of them admit the instructor did'nt quite split the needles and did a semi power recovery run on landing !!!
Funny thing....real engine off landings are no where near the same as the ones done during practice.
Engine at idle just isn't the same as riding a dead donk to the ground without first having surveyed the landing spot.
Engine at idle just isn't the same as riding a dead donk to the ground without first having surveyed the landing spot.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,097
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I qualified for 'wings' I had to complete solo engine off to the ground, having practised a lot before hand, subsequently it was practised every six months with a QHI. All this paid off in Indonesia in 1968 when I had a full blown engine failure in an AB206A. I would have thought that engine offs to the ground were an essential part of anyone's basic training. And yes, the real thing does sound very different to a practise.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine at idle just isn't the same as riding a dead donk
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always wondered whether the turbine at idle contributes any significant power to uping rrpm
real engine off landings are no where near the same as the ones done during practice
collective full down , check,
safe to reach an area, check,
throttle in idle cut off, check, (as with sleight of hand the mags go off),
quiet eh?
Did you just notice, no hydraulics? dumbo.
well, be positive, but don't over control, damm it.
now listen carefully to the sound of the blades,
let's slow them down, hear that?
Now let's speed them up, see that corolois effect, only used five knots to rescue it, magic eh?
now you do it, easy eh?
did you just notice that your RRPM tacho is U/S, dumbo,
then r-e-m-e- m-b-e-r this sound, or you die.
ah, just reminded me of a joke.
tet
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 67
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I'm catching up on this thread, so I'm quoting from several postings:
This is one reason I think it is a good idea to perform a *lot* of throttle chops with a student. You don't want the pilot to be having to think "oh, what's going on, OMG it's an engine failure, now what is it I have to do again?". You want the reaction to be instinctive - between the yaw, and the change in engine/rotor noise, the left arm should just immediately go down. The thought process should almost be "hmm, I'm autorotating... I must have had an engine failure!".
There is another side to doing autos in the R22: when I went to Bell school years ago, after the first throttle chop and landing, the Bell instructor looks at me kind of funny and asks me: are you an R22 pilot? I thought he was going to disrespect the aircraft, but when I said "yes" his response: "Yeah, I thought so. R22 pilots do the BEST autos". :-)
Of the people I know: 3 carb ice engine failures at the school when I was learning (before Robinson figured out about the carb temp gauge). My instructor landed on the paved runway, no problem. Another instructor landed off airport, no problem. A third instructor landed no problem, but I never heard whether that was off airport or to the pavement. My instructor on the CPL had an engine failure in an R22 and landed off airport: she tipped it over. The guy who owned the school I learned at had an engine failure at 300 feet and landed off airport, no problem. A local pilot with a lower bearing failure a couple years back bent the machine. Personally, I think it's a bit of luck: lots of fields that look great from 1,000 feet turn out to be so steep you wouldn't land on them power on, let alone power off.
I think some of this is how often you are doing them in make/model. When I'm teaching almost every day in the R22, I have no doubts about my abilities. However, when I go through slow periods, or periods where most of my time is in other make/model, I find my skills in the R22 erode pretty quickly, and I get more conservative.
My favorite aircraft to teach autos in was the Enstrom. Lots and lots of inertia. The R44 and the B206 are both pretty forgiving as well, but the Enstrom is a TANK!. I only have a little time in the Schweizer and didn't think it was *that* much easier than the R22, but then I have a lot more hours in the Robby.
Well, they aren't *that* rare. I know quite a few helicopter pilots who have had them, I've had one in an airplane, and then there are all the other failures that have the same result: we had a local pilot lose the lower bearing in an R22 a couple years back, I've had a sprag clutch malfunction that required a full down; it happens, even in turbine helicopters.
You have to realize that Frank believes in his heart that his helicopter can do no wrong. It is pretty depressing to read the accident reports and see the same accident over and over, but I don't personally think that means you should limit teaching autos/EOLs, it just means you have to find ways to avoid those sorts of accidents. Here in the USA where most of the training is being conducted by relatively inexperienced instructors, it's not surprising that there are a lot of training accidents. You also have to look at the aircraft being used for training: The R22 is not impossible to land EOL, but it certainly is a lot harder than many of the other helicopters. I've always wished for a high inertia version of the R22 for training. I've done a fair amount of training in the Enstrom and the R44 and it is certainly much easier to teach autos in those types, and also lets you as the instructor roll the throttle off in many more situations. I won't roll the throttle off on an R22 student in a 5 foot hover: there's too little energy if he does the wrong thing. In the Enstrom I used to roll it off in pretty much any flight regime because there was plenty of energy for the student to mess up and me to still fix it. Having the oleos helped too ;-)
I'm afraid I'm a lot less sanguine than you about pilots' ability to get into autorotation after a sudden and complete engine failure in an R22.
In the case of a partial or gradual engine failure I'm sure there would be few problems, but where something like carb icing turns the engine off like a light, especially in the climb, I'm simply not convinced that the average person's recognition processes/reaction time are up to the job.
In the case of a partial or gradual engine failure I'm sure there would be few problems, but where something like carb icing turns the engine off like a light, especially in the climb, I'm simply not convinced that the average person's recognition processes/reaction time are up to the job.
tabdy: I think I will continue to avoid the R22! (wrt autos)
puntosaurus: I had an ex Navy instructor in the early nineties who was nuts about autos to the ground, and his enthusiasm eventually rubbed off on me. About four years after I qualified he had his sixth genuine engine problem (first since the navy) in an R22 on a recovery from practise auto away from the field. Because it wasn't the nice smooth grass of the airfield, he tipped it over on landing, wrecked the machine but walked away with his student. The point there is that I would have backed him over anyone to land intact, but even he couldn't do it on a less than perfect surface.
manfromuncle: As an experienced instructor, I will not do EOLs to the ground in an R22, sure, I can do them, but it's just too easy to bend up the aircraft, get the sack, get a reputation etc. I will do them in the Schweizer with a student, because it's a much more forgiving aircraft for it.
My favorite aircraft to teach autos in was the Enstrom. Lots and lots of inertia. The R44 and the B206 are both pretty forgiving as well, but the Enstrom is a TANK!. I only have a little time in the Schweizer and didn't think it was *that* much easier than the R22, but then I have a lot more hours in the Robby.
Engine failures are EXTREMELY rare, you're much more likely to get some sort of malfunction/chip light/partial power loss, than a full-blown engine failure.
manfromuncle:Frank Robinson said on the safety course that, at one point, so many people were crashing R22s during practice autos that he seriously wanted to ban people from doing autos in them!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 67
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always wondered whether the turbine at idle contributes any significant power to uping rrpm
In a glide, if the needles are split, I don't believe you are getting any help from the engine. Split is split, as far as I know.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Paul is right, but I have to add to the discussion.
I did an article about autorotations with the engine at idle not being the same as with the engine stopped. I carefully did not mention any types, as I wasn't sure this was applicable to all.
A large helicopter manufacturer in Texas took exception to the article, and went and proved there was no measurable difference in the performance or handling with the engine at idle or off. This was pretty gutsy, but they now do an annual engine really failed autorotation with each of their instructors.
So while the contribution of the engine at idle may be there on some helcopters, it's not there on all of them!
I did an article about autorotations with the engine at idle not being the same as with the engine stopped. I carefully did not mention any types, as I wasn't sure this was applicable to all.
A large helicopter manufacturer in Texas took exception to the article, and went and proved there was no measurable difference in the performance or handling with the engine at idle or off. This was pretty gutsy, but they now do an annual engine really failed autorotation with each of their instructors.
So while the contribution of the engine at idle may be there on some helcopters, it's not there on all of them!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul, I agree that as a turbine takes time to spool down, there is a lot of assistance in simulated engine failures. But some machines with high intertia blades are very forgiving.
I remember doing a practice auto in a B206 and to our surprise the needle was barely touching bottom of the green even with collective full down. It was intended to be a hover recovery but my instructor was so absorbed by the phenomenon I ended up doing a full touchdown anyway. We later found out that the pitch links were actually off and had to be re-adjusted by the engineers.
Another instructor once demonstrated a practice auto in a B47G (piston). He took off vertically to 200 ft, then rolled throttle off and let the chopper drop vertically all the way until perhaps 20 ft AGL when he pitched collective, and the descent of the machine suddenly slowed down, as if a lift (or elevator) is just arriving at the chosen floor. The rest is continuing to cushion the touchdown with collective and landing at the very point we took off. Shows how much intertia there is in the ol' girl's blades - amazing stuff.
I remember doing a practice auto in a B206 and to our surprise the needle was barely touching bottom of the green even with collective full down. It was intended to be a hover recovery but my instructor was so absorbed by the phenomenon I ended up doing a full touchdown anyway. We later found out that the pitch links were actually off and had to be re-adjusted by the engineers.
Another instructor once demonstrated a practice auto in a B47G (piston). He took off vertically to 200 ft, then rolled throttle off and let the chopper drop vertically all the way until perhaps 20 ft AGL when he pitched collective, and the descent of the machine suddenly slowed down, as if a lift (or elevator) is just arriving at the chosen floor. The rest is continuing to cushion the touchdown with collective and landing at the very point we took off. Shows how much intertia there is in the ol' girl's blades - amazing stuff.
If you are doing them in a Bell 47, do them with the hydraulics OFF. All models except those with a 900 Series MGB (3B2's?) have the hydraulic pump driven by the engine.
In the old days it was Engine OFF, Hydraulics OFF, Rotor Tach covered, ears tuned and eyeballs like dinner plates.
In the old days it was Engine OFF, Hydraulics OFF, Rotor Tach covered, ears tuned and eyeballs like dinner plates.
