Cron

I'm probably totally out of my depth posting here (as a PPL with 55 hours R22) but as the discussion relates to the value of the 5 hours Instrument time I may have something to offer.

I got the feeling from all the instructors at my school that 5 hours thing was really a joke but they are/were a very professional bunch and never forced opinions.

I had been shown and had successfully (well not too badly) carried out 180's in patchy cloud but I was always able to sneak a peek at outside reference - mayble this was for confidence building.

One day one of them very calmly and carefully and with extensive 'precautions' directed me to fly into cloud at about 4000'. He was hawk like hovering over the controls as we entered very 'thick' cumulus.

Now, I have been near too and in thin cloud on a Hang Glider several times (not on purpose of course) and really thought this would be no big deal - the initial roughness at cloud base was expected but I was suprised that the helicopter moved around as much as my glider - I could not keep steady needles.

As we entered the cloud the whole world changed, the helicopter seemed to be vibrating 10 times more than usual, outside there was just blinding white, there was no view, no reference, my senses were saying we were pointing at the ground and going 200mph. The AH was tipping left slightly. Yes, I began to correct the wrong way, yet on my (fairly good PC simulator) I can fly around in cloud all day no problem.

Even when the Instructor assisted in levelling the a/c I gently pushed back at him the wrong way, we were still slowing - about 50kts now, the instructor started predicting the outcome - I remember him saying 'upside down', I'm hunched forward right over the cyclic for no good reason, my veins are sticking out of my arm just through the force I'm gripping the lever with.. no matter how much I told myself the right way to move the cyclic my senses overcame and moved it the wrong way - even just gentle small movements.

The instructor levelled us and with lots of c/heat descended into the clear. I'm all back to normal now and we are in the clear and can fly as usual (inexpertly but I hope safely).

I was totally and utterly shaken by this experience, not the physical aspects but by my inablility to even remotely cope with the situation. All the books, all the PC simulators all the advise were as nothing. I decided at that point that hundreds, possibly thousands of hours are required to adapt out the senses and apply the instruments. It worked for me as shock therapy - another 10, 50, 100 hours I feel would not be enough.

bladewashout

Is that even legal? R22 certified for VFR flight only, clear of cloud & in sight of ground, irrespective of the instructor's rating (IR or otherwise).

I completely understand the rationale for doing it but it seems an unjustifiably risky addition to the training programme.

BW

tommacklin

Some very interesting points being made here.

I believe that there is a definite advantage to be gained by teaching a student pilot how to fly the aircraft without external reference. Unfortunately, in most helicopters, and aeroplanes for that matter, you simply cannot get rid of all external references. No matter how well you restrict the student's field of view, there is always an external reference that will make the exercise unrealistic and inadequate.

The only way to improve the reality of the exercise is to get into the cloud and do it for real under IFR, or, do it in a quality simulator.

Both of these options create their own difficulties and would be quite difficult to achieve given that most PPL(H) training is now done on the R22/Schw 300. I am guessing, therefore, that the aviation authorities around the world are aware of this and have decided to accept a few hours of simulated IF as a compromise.

Personally, I prefer the "educate and supervise" approach. The student must be well aware that simulated IF is a poor compromise and is not a ticket to explore the sky nor to ignore reducing visibility/cloudbase. If all else fails they MUST land and phone their mum.

You woudn't catch me in cloud in a 22.

DeltaFree

Having worked for a VFR operator that did some training for inadvertent IMC. I realise any training affects different people different ways. Some gain in confidence, if they can do it in a simulated environment then it is no big deal. Others realise the difficulties and vow never to get into real IMC. Lets face it if you fly rotary one of the biggest assets is the ability to go down and slow down to the point where, you might just as well land and live to fly another day.

helicopter-redeye

I sat next to a high hours IR pilot on a return from the US once.

His view (only a view mind) was that if he had not practiced IR flying THAT WEEK, he was not current for flying in instrument only conditions.

Pat Malone

Head Bolt:

Quote:

"Pat,

I am surprised that you can make the bold statement that this accident 'would not have happened' without the instrument awareness training."

So am I. I didn't.

Pat

[email protected]

Cron - your experience validates my point - there is no substitute for real IMC training. But do we now have the tail wagging the dog? there is no real IMC training for PPLs, not because there is no need (quite the opposite) but because the machines used for training are not suitable for IMC work. The R22 may be cheap to run (300 similarly) but we are short changing our PPL pilots for the sake of 1 hour in an IFR aicraft in cloud (surely 5 hours in an R22 would pay for one hour in something IFR rated).
I am afraid that in my experience, no simulator can come close to the real experience of being in bumpy cloud (the fear factor is impossible to replicate) and there just ain't no substitute for doing it for real.

rotorspeed

Interesting, frank and unsurprising view from Cron, saying how alarming it was to actually enter true IMC with no previous experience. And that was when he knew he was at 4000ft with lots of clear sky just below - and an instructor right alongside! Now add the stress being totally on your own, with a very cloud base that makes the exit options tricky, and you can probably double the level of angst!

Going IMC to prove the point in an R22/44? Am not an instructor, but don't like that, (a) because it's illegal and more importantly (b), because there's got be to pretty high risk in that accidents will result. So is the instructor instrument rated? Recent experience? Machine's suitability? Hmm. We know from the Hislop accident that it doesn't take much disorientation in an R22/44 to end up cutting tails off. Sure many instructors can do this well. But can all, all of the time?

So as Crab says, use an IFR machine and IR instructor. But then jumping out of a 22/44 into say an IFR 355 for an hour is likely to be so alien and overwhelming that the purpose may well be swamped by the totality of the new experience.

Back to the 5 hours instrument awareness to get a PPL. I'm right with those who think it's a bad thing, tempting those who can be over-confident. But the initial requirement is only part of it - what "instrument awareness" is subsequently taught/tested? Does the annual LPC include it? And even after getting your full IR, you'd be pretty poor after 3 months of no instrument flying, let alone a year after 5 hours instrument awareness as a low time PPL.

So as far as I'm concerned we're right back to either being VFR or IFR, with nothing in between. Frankly it is not difficult to keep out of IMC, if you are motivated to do so.

Hilico

BBC report dated 25th July 07.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/6915489.stm

rotorspin

for such an open and shut case this is madness?

there are many, many more incidents that have bigger doubts over them that never end up at an enquiry????

Suppose we had all better get celeb status so we can have an enquiry in the event of poor piloting?

Whirlygig

Unless new evidence has come to light, I cannot see that a public enquiry can possibly come to any different conclusion from that produced by the AAIB.

His family, friends and fans want a different answer but sadly, they are unlikely to get it and all we get from is an increased tax bill.

Cheers

Whirls

zalt

If the Air Accident Investigation Branch report did go as far as saying 'that an aircraft malfunction "could not be eliminated" '(BBC), then this no doubt has left the family with an open question they hope to resolve.

Chukkablade

Zalt, thats because the AAIB had s little to go on. How do you prove a negative?

It's another case of a low hour PPL getting into IMC in a helicopter thats not designed for it, and things going very, very quickly to rat****. Even his instructor warned him he was getting outside his experience envelope before his fatefull day.

The guy may have been god on a 'bike (and he was, IMHO) but that isn't related to the facts.

Rotorspin and Whirlygig are, as usual, spot on, if a little blunt with it.

If he was Joe Bloggs, fresh PPL, would this enquiry be getting held? My moneys on a no.

Whirlygig

I believe Steve Hislop had a CPL.

Excuse me! I'm not blunt! I'm cute and cuddly and caring!

Cheers

Whirls

rapman

R.I.P. Steve

Chukkablade

Sorry Whirls, your mistaken here, Steve never had a CPL, he only had 96 hours total time when he died. Mostly on Enstroms I believe, not on R44's.

IIRC, when he had that fatefull day, the weather was grim enough for the RAF to bin a 2 ship low flying sortie in the area, and a Chinook also did a dog leg West to avoid it. When he entered the IMC, the data recovered from the GPS stated it went from good to dead in about 60 seconds. They think he entered IMC, and tried to do a 180 turn away from it (as taught on the PPL course) and thats where he got bitten.

Bloody sad.

Three Blades

Original thread on this subject:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...t=97772&page=1

AAIB report:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati..._i__g_ouel.cfm

____________________________________________________________ ___

Threads now merged

Senior Pilot

verticalhold

I remember this one horribly well. I didn't post on the original thread as there was a lot of arguing going on. That evening I was in the area with a VFR only twin Squirrel working my c**k off due to the conditions. I binned the rest of the job, chucked it in a field and spent the night in a nearby pub.

God help anyone flying as things were that evening, especially a low time PPL.
The viz was patchy and down to zero in places with very wet cloud hanging off the hills. A climb to MSA was utterly out of the question as the weather obviously went up a long way and I didn't want to spend the rest of my life in IMC with the usual VFR standard of instruments that the 355 provides as a basic VFR fit.

That night frightened me at times. Sadly for Steve Hislop he probably didn't know enough to know how much trouble was awaiting him.

VH

r44raven

Having read the AAIB report and new stories, I wonder, with respect to all parties concerned, if the family's pressure for a public enquiry was prompted not so much by the suspicion of a critical in -flight failure than the presence of fast jet traffic in the LFA around the time of the incident?

steve

Martin Barclay

As I am sure you are all aware from the innaccurate media coverage there is an ongoing case being heard regarding the sad loss of Steve Hislop. For any readers of that esteemed rag 'The Metro' this morning they will have been interested to read that the pilot had 5 hours of flight experience!
This level of journalism beggars belief and implies that we are all charging around the skies having received our licences free from Keloggs with a couple of cereal box lids.

Morning rant over, but seriously this kind of thing should be stopped. Any ideas?