|
Thanks Mr S., I realise that it is being done around Aus but Sydney is more convenient. Just wondered when are the days in YSBK.
Mind you a short "working" vacation in Whitsundays would be good... |
headsethair, I hate to stir the calm waters... but full down autos ARE done. Lately, I've been told they haven't been doing them. Nevertheless, I know that the old time test pilots (13,000+ Robbie hours alone) will do full down auto's in the Safety Course when Frank isn't in the building. That said, it was the smoothest auto I've ever seen and the wear on the skid shoes was probably minimal (running landings take longer). They should do full downs in every course.
|
Well, I ve finished the course this AM....
Learnt some new thngs... Refreshed some things... Been scared again!... Good course. Good instructors. Good 4 days. Can't say much that hasn't been said by the 'insider' ! PW |
I found the dates of the Bankstown course - 30th Jan '04 to 1st February. Heliflite is running it at a local hotel (which they part own.) Their price is A$690 for the course and A$430 for the check flight.
That seems pretty expensive compared to the factory course at Torrance. And pretty expensive compared to the price at Airlie Beach Qld. (A$440 for the course and A$240 for the check ride.) Methinks someone is making a nice little earner out of a safety course that is now required by several insurance companies and Robbo rental outfits. Any views on this? |
Supply and demand...
I'm sure they always had some margin on it, but it sounds as though they definately increased their net. You somewhat answered your own question, in that demand for the course will increase because of insurance requirements. Still, it's probably less expensive than to fly all the way to RHC for the same course.
|
Hi everyone,
I will be in my second safety course by tomorrow. Any questions to ask Tim Tucker? Answers posted immediately!! I will ask Tim a couple of questions relating to previous posts on this thread - mastbumping, sideslips, etc. To Lu: I can't find ANYTHING in the POH that would RESTRICT or PROHIBITE off-trim flight or sideslips!! The closest I can find is: "To avoid these conditions, pilots are URGED to follow these recommendations:...." As mentioned before the POH is written to include people that barely maintain their abilities, 30 hrs per year/sunday afternoon pilots. When things get interesting, it is the best advice to follow these recommendations. On the other side of the spectrum, I did and do plenty of max speed (about 40 kts, GPS based) 70° to 90° sideways flights (sideslips?) for areal filming and I do not feel any increased flapping! I do not move the cyclic a lot either.... By the way the R-44 flies sideways just fine, a lot better than the EC120B. At 40 kts I just run out of pedal. I was doing this already before I attended my first safety course and because of a thread on pprune relating specifically to the R-brand I asked about it. Though I did not get official approval as a factory recommended maneuver, it was made clear, that if done with "the brain switched ON" there is no problem with it. Actually I asked what the max sideways speed was, as I was doing 35-40 and the manual states 18 kts. Tim said he would not "know" (I guess he would not "say") the actual limit, but the 18 kts was only the demonstrated crosswind capability - all that was required for certification. That's all they did.... Like always, know your limits! Okay guys, your questions please, I have Tim standing right outside in the hangar!! Got to go, :D :D :D 3top :cool: |
Back again!
I missed it somewhere in the thread: Could someone straighten me out again, why I will have increased flapping action in a sideways flight (sideslip?). Assume a stabilized 35 kts sideways flight, hardly any control inputs - why would I have more flapping than in stabilized forward flight at 35 kts? Thanks for your time, 3top :D |
A matter of interpretation
To: 3 top
Words in any POH are there to cover the collective asses of the manufacturer of the aircraft. The words in question are: To avoid these conditions, pilots are strongly urged to follow these recommendations. These words are followed by five recommendations one of which is, Avoid sideslip during flight. Maintain in-trim flight at all times. Immediately preceding the words, To avoid these conditions…… is a paragraph about mast bumping which is fatal if it is incurred. The five recommendations can result in mast bumping if not followed. These five recommendations were promulgated as a result of a detailed computer analyses by Georgia Tech regarding 27 or more loss of control accidents with this report being commissioned by the FAA. You indicate that in your job you constantly violate these recommendations about sideslipping and flying out of trim and so far nothing has happened. The operative words are, “So far”. If and when it does happen you will be accused of pilot error and not following the POH and the recommendations therein. So if the POH covers the manufacturers ass who is protectig yours? :E :E |
Lu,
before I engage in ANY discussion about actually FLYING a helicopter I would want you to at least hold a private licence for helicopters, else there is no sense discussing this with you. Just for the heck of it I will post the complete part of the POH you are refering to, just to show that you also conveniently ommit details. It might take until tuesday to have time for this, but bare with me.... I have no POH at home, but if I remember right, mastbumbing was mentioned in this context, AFTER getting into low-G AND aggresive action of the cyclic. It also mentions that you should immediately, BUT gently apply aft cyclic - to me as a pilot that means apply a little back pressure, NOT yank the darn thing to the rear stop! Interpretation again!! Recommedations are recommedations, Lu, not prohibitions, rules laws. And again, POH's are made to include the least competent pilot possible. E.G. the POH clearly states: Aerobatic flight PROHIBITED! Flight into IMC PROHIBITED! Can you interprete the difference - Prohibited/Do not recommend?? If they needed to "cover their asses" as you call it, they would have printed PROHIBITED on sideslips and out of trim flight! "Avoid sideslip during flight. Maintain in-trim flight at all times." ....is a basic recommendation that applies to all helicopters, heck to all aircraft!! Just because it is emphazised in the Robinson-POH it does not mean that you disintegrate if you do not follow the recommendation! But you will be slower and use more fuel! It is basic airmanship to keep your aircraft in trim! But the beauty of the helicopter is, that you can do a lot of interesting and useful things with it, if you know what you do! .....most of that you will not find in ANY POH!! 3top |
Did I say interpretation?
To: 3 top
You are right they are recommendations not restrictions. However in the certification of any helicopter the following are required demonstrations in order to gain certification. In forward flight at around.68VNE (I think that is the required speed) the pilot must kick hard right pedal so the aircraft is positioned 90-degrees from the original flightpath. He must hold that position for a proscribed time and then kick opposite pedal to shift the aircraft 90-degrees from the original flight path. There should be no resultant problems. Another demonstration is to fly the helicopter +/- 10- degrees left and right flying out of trim at the same speed as above. Also with no problems arising. Now we refer to the RECOMMENDATIONS which state “Avoid sideslip during flight. Maintain in-trim flight at all times. Do you see any problems or conflict between the certification requirements and the recommendations in the POH? As far as my being at least a PPH to make any comments I have been associated with helicopters since 1949 either as a mechanic or as an engineer. :E :E |
Actually, the reference to maintaining trim was added, without Frank's objection, because Mariner models equipped with floats are susceptible to adverse roll characteristics in the turn. Actually, a rolling action is more pronounced in ANY helicopter equipped with floats under the right conditions...
High-mounted rotor systems vs. low mounted floats = significant fuselage drag likely to be below the center-of-gravity. |
RD:
you are right. However if you keep your attention on the helicopter it is nothing to worry. The main difference is a more lively helicopter in winds and a steeper decend angle in an auto. As you mentioned that is in most any float equiped helo. Lu: a) You headlined your previous post with something about interpretation.... b) As to the certification demo requirements: What do they have to do with the recommendations in the POH? The R44/22 are perfectly capable of doing both things. It just was recommended to avoid this in everyday flying. As a matter of fact I just learned, that the R22 was flown at about 50 kts sideways!! to demonstrate that there aren't any bad loss of T/R effectivness issues at any point! Robinson doesn't recommend to do this on a daily basis however! c) There are a lot of certification tests that do not enter the POH as a limit: Also just learned, that anything that the helicopter is supposed to be able to do at VNe is actually tested at VNe+10%! On the R22 there was a particular requirement to overspeed the Rrpm to 116% which was not possible to do at Vne+10% so it was flown to 150 mph!! (in a slight dive) and then the cyclic went aft to flare enough to do the 116% at VNE+!! That is way beyond anything I would have considered sane on a R22. BUT of course that is done by pilots that are a grade or two above the guy who flies 30-50 hrs in a year (and has to be considered when writing the POH...). It is mainly not to keep you from running into the limits of the machine, but keeping you from running into your OWN limits! The closer you fly the helicopter to its limits the more refined you have to be, and the factory has to cut a line somewhere - if everyone would be a "Rich Lee" or "Nick L." we would need no POH's. You agree? I would hate to learn that Bell, EC, MD, Sikorsky or any other company just tested to the POH limits and not WAY beyond! I assume that the recommmendations regarding sideslips and out of trim flight are the same from all the manufactures and are taught as a self-understanding matter on any factory checkout. This is normally also taught in any decent flight school. No blame on Robinson to point it out in the POH - I still encounter hightime pilots who have no concept of trimmed flight! Coming from all and any brand. d) Lu, I know your credencials from this forum and you are welcome to make as many comments on helicopters as you wish! Generally I enjoy them until I (or is it you?) get lost in your explanations.... I just refuse to discuse helicopter piloting issues with someone who only has (or has not...) THEORETICAL knowledge about it. No offense Lu, I was there too. BEFORE I started to actually take flight lessons I read everything about it and thought I KNEW everything about it - WAKE UP: Until you actually control a helicopter by yourself you have NO IDEA about it AT ALL! All the theory suddenly changes its face!! So excuse me, but some "issues" you bring up make completely no sense from a pilots view (though I grant it might from a non-pilots view....), ... then this is a P-Pilot-RuNe. I have been flying with plenty of Tuna skippers that have around 12000 hrs of helicopter time sitting on the other seat as observers, going through all kinds of interesting maneuvers and they all think they could land the helicopter if they had to. I put in the duals and let them GO at it. ALL of them would have been dead in less then 10 sec if I let them KEEP at it! Again, no offense, but until you fly one yourself (got to hover, past the solo x-country, do all the basics...) you don't know jack about (flying) it. Going for cover! :cool: 3top Back again, with some rumours out of the course: a) definitely no changes on the R-22 (hydraulics or so...). It was taken about as far as it goes and except for minor cosmetic things there is nothing to be expected. Stainless M/R blades are still not possible for weight issues. b) R-66?: Nothing on the board (or PC) yet, but concepts/ideas/solutions are contemplated. You got an idea? Mail it to them! The issue: # A 5-place helicopter with the growth potential towards a 7-place via the same concept that was used for the R-22/44 ("Stick a straw in it and blow it up!", Tim Tucker's words!) # Include a baggage compartment to fit two sets of golf clubs. # Do it for half the price of the competition! This is where the powerplant question comes in. With present turbine prices, this is not possible. Any ideas? Frank will supposedly listen to any reasonable idea! By the way, 300 hp will not be enough! My 2 cents: TWO Zoche-aero-diesels, once if ever, they become available! c) The crash of the R-44 in Jakarta (settling with power onto the roof top of a hotel and then fall into the pool): Most likely the pilot held the collective all the way up even after impact, which caused the helicopter to keep on sliding and then dynamic roll over the side. This is no finger pointing at the poor guy (3000 hrs commercial), but analysis suggested at the Safety course. Probably he had his heart still stuck in the throat from just getting onto the roof top while in a settling with power. Just did not get to slam the damn thing (collective) down, once on the platform. It looked like the helicopter LIFTED of the ground after it caught the skid. d) From a previous question on this thread: Lu, if Robinson had to certify the R-44 today, the one problem they would have is with the seat impact crash worthiness (as would most all light US helicopters on the market). They received the Typ certificate in December 92 and Rules where changed in Jan 93. They probably would have to redesign the landing gear to absorb a higher g-load, compared to their present standard, which isn't bad in the first place...... Anyway, nothing to do with 18 degrees..... :O 3top :cool: |
3top, thanks for the interesting updates from the course!
|
Interpretation-Deja Vu all over again.
To: 3 top
You missed the point completely. The certification requirements dictate what the manufacturer must demonstrate to get certification. The requirements are the same for all normal category rotorcraft. These certification requirements are contained in AC-27-1 and apply to all helicopters that fall under this classification including the R-22 and the R-44. The POH establishes the operational limitations that the pilot must comply with and these operational requirements are established to keep pilots out of “deep sh!t”. That means that if there are no restrictions in the POH the pilot can go to the limits of the certification requirements without getting into trouble. When the R-22 first went into service there were no problems however after experiencing almost 27 loss of control accidents the FAA instituted a detailed study as to what was causing the problems. Sideslipping and out of trim flight were two of the things that could cause extreme flapping and as a result and AD was issued that described mast bumping and what could cause it. Now as I stated previously the POH covers the collective asses of the Robinson factory. You say you violate these recommendations and nothing has happened. When it does Robinson will point out that you caused the extreme flapping which resulted in mast bumping and therefore it is your fault. That is the point I was trying to make. Look at it this way. If Frank Robinson had designed the R-22 today and had the results of the Georgia Tech study he would go to the FAA asking for certification telling them that his helicopter could not be sideslipped nor, could it be flown out of trim. The FAA would state that since he could not meet the basic requirements of AC-27-1 his helicopter could not be certified. One other point is that no other helicopter has these same restriction/recommendations and no other helicopter has an SFAR written against it. Does this possibly indicate that there is something in the design that precipitated these restrictions and the SFAR. Read rotorhead. :E :E |
Lu,
forget it!! If the R's couldn´t be sideslipped or flown out of trim, they would not get certified. They have to demonstrate a 17 kts crosswind capability, which is by no means a limitation, according to the man at the safety course. AND: A recommendation is a recomendation NOT a ristriction/recommendation! You only can violate a limit or law or prohibition not a recommedation! I'm not sure though on the grammar!! RDR: I'll be back later with the rear cylic slightly left for low-g recovery... AND as Tim Tucker points out: These are not rumours, but exactly what I stated - brainstorming!! Nothing concrete as of this hour. Basically it depends all which powerplant if they find one, as the helicopter configuration will depend a lot on the specific engine (turbine, piston - gas/diesel, warp drive, .....) 3top :cool: |
Once again into the breech
To: 3 top
If the R's couldn't be sideslipped or flown out of trim, they would not get certified Robinson obviously conformed to the certification requirements and most probably demonstrated the required sideslip and out of trim flight. I am not saying that they can’t do these maneuvers because they obviously can. You do it all the time along with a lot of other Robbie pilots. My point is that if you do it and fate steps in and you get extreme flapping as indicated in the recommendations with the resultant mast bumping you have violated the recommendations in the POH. In legal terms this is pilot error and most likely you are dead. Don’t let your product loyalty get in the way of reasoning. If fate steps in and you get mast bumping the last group that will come to your rescue is Robinson helicopter company and especially Pathfinder insurance. :E :E |
Lu, you are somewhat correct - but not completely. Robinson is not a religion for me, but I have to point out that recommendations and limitations are definately two different things. Not all recommendations will kill you if flown outside the recommended parameters. In fact, I can give a dozen examples of routine flight regimes found in contrast to recommendations that are safe to perform and flown quite frequently. Obviously, exceeding limitations is a big NO-NO.
However, if you folks really really want to debate this further, can you do it on another thread? It's been done already, but we can always do it again. Perhaps t'aint natural will retort with technical information this time? Ah-Dee-Rik-Stah has spoken! :E |
Sorry RDR, just posted while you where writting yours.
Agreed, for my part this is the end of the story, and no I will not put it onto another thread - it is the end of the story! However I got plenty of confirmation on these sujects on the course, so here they are........again. Back again, first, Lu: a) We are not insured with pathfinder, I guess they only cover USA. b) I am not company loyal to R, but loyal to a great performing helicopter, which like all others needs good maintenance to stay great, but it does certain things a whole lot better than others. c) I don' t know for sure, but was there any accident where sideslip was a factor WITHOUT first getting into low-g (which is not unique to the Robinson....) or some kind of turbulence? d) There is actually no increased flapping action in a stable sideslip. For a given speed and powersetting (or collective position) the rotor will not actually flap more in a sideslip. What you have is a reduced, available teeter angle (or whatever this one is called) between the rotorhead (rotor disc) and the mast, for the increased inclination of the fuselage (and therefor the mast) against the rotordisc. But there is no increased flapping in a sense that the blades go up and down further then in forward flight for the same speed/power setting. Though you may need more power to maintain the same speed sideways for the increased drag from the fuselage. If you maintain a smooth flight (and flight conditions) you may verywell use the helicopters ability. e)Confirmed by the man doing the course: "The recommedations where put into the book to remind the AVERAGE pilot on normal good piloting skills. There are sooo many comercial pilots out there who seem never have learned to pay attention to their back, the ball in the turn coordinator or the wind strings on the windshield, it is amazing! They all crab along day in, day out. It is just there to remind the pilots on good piloting practise and to pay attention to your indicators. If you need to go sideslipping or out of trim flying, you are expected to know what you do, and do it according to the tighter limits that your are dealing with at this moment. Last time: IT IS NOT PROHIBITED, LIMITED, just recommended. f) Probably tomorrow I will copy the sections mentioned before: WELL ACTUALLY NOT, AS THIS IS THE END OF THE STORY! If anyone needs it anyway, please send me a message and I will post it on a new thread! Lu, the recommendations on sideslip and out of trim are mentioned in conjunction with moderate to severe turbulence, low-g and low-g recovery. Though it is good practise to watch out for this at all times, okay? Of course if you are in this situation (turbulence, low-g) you would want to keep everything as centered as possible, just as it is taught in every decent flight school...........End of story. To all and Lu: g) The recommeded recovery technic from low-g: immediate, but very little (called "gentle" in the POH) aft cyclic ("apply a little aft pressure", but I guess for grammatical interpretation reasons it has to be called: move the cyclic...) plus a little to the left (FOR ALL American style helicopters, including the 90 degree Bell206!!!). Once the rotor is loaded again, the slight left cyclic will have the disk in the right position to recover from the right roll a little easier and earlier. However as this will most likely be missinterpretated at some point by a less than perfect pilot, the left part of the equation was eliminated from the POH recommendation, to avoid that someone is pulling ALL THE WAY. It is believed that not mentioning the "little left" will cause less problems than a misinterpretated one. According to the man at hand, who has his about 18000 hrs well split between Robinson time and anything else with some really heavy equipment (I call Hueys, 212, Dolphines, etc. heavy...) mixed in, the recovery is the same for the same direction of rotor rotation. Actually the Huey is WORSE than a 206 or Robinson, as the T/R is already above the CG at most times except steep flairs or pullup's. It also has a way "better" arm on the CG to get it rolling. Again then, no special "18 degrees problem" here..... h) Question to all: Does any other brand even mention a low-g recovery technic or low-g at all in their POH? I know the EC120B doesn't. I don't remember the 206 or Bell47. You know, it is amazing that there is a company that actually gives you an advice how to get out of a situation you should not get yourself into in the first place, and what they get for it is, that their machine gets marked as dangerous, all the while the same can happen just as easy in about ANY helicopter, except the rigid ones. Lu, you mention that R is just covering his a**s, are the other ones doing that by not mentioning anything in this respect at all? i) Nothing new, that the man knows, on the unresolved complete loss of the rotor with the mast of a R-22, some 15 years ago, mentioned on this thread (japanese lady on board?) Enough rambled, got to go and play with my son! 3top, :E |
This is it on this subject.
To: 3 top
Lu, you mention that R is just covering his a**s, are the other ones doing that by not mentioning anything in this respect at all? That is all I have to say on this matter. If you can not see my point then as they say “Fate is the hunter” :E :E |
Robinson Safety Course Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Aviation Club have invited Tim Tucker over to present the Safety Course to their helicopter pilots on the weekend of the 30th October.
I have not yet been given the go ahead from the committee to open it to the rest of the industry but if it was available, at a sensible price, is there anyone interested around Asia who would like to attend? This would allow you to either refresh for your bi/tri annual insurance requirements or to join the ranks of those who have learned more in two days towards flight safety in Robinsons than you can shake a stick at. Let me know, here on the thread or pm's |
R22 Safety Courses
Have just completed a R22 Safety course and am wondering what other people that have been to one of these think of them. Thank you for your time
|
Originally Posted by CHOPPER74
Have just completed a R22 Safety course and am wondering what other people that have been to one of these think of them. Thank you for your time
Pat Cox was absolutely the best and I'd take his course if time allowed. I think Tucker needs to get over himself. What did you think of the course? |
Safety Course was well worth while, Who is LU?
I am not new to the forum as I have lurked for a while.
I would recommend the Robinson Safety Course to anyone that has the time and money to go to Torrance. The factory tour shows you not only how they are made but the great care that goes in to making them. I am not a devout Robinson follower and have flown other makes and models but it is hard to beat the Robinson product for what it is signed to do. Frank Robinson has brought helicopter ownership to many individuals and organizations that could not other wise afford a light turbine machine. Speaking of design, Who is LU? Not a pilot but he says he has been associated with helicopter for 20-30 years. I have been associated with the local hospital for about the same amount of time but that does not make me a Doctor. In a past professional career, I also built and rebuilt hospitals but they still do not call me Doctor either. Yes, I do fly a Robinson as a police pilot and I do fly it out of trim, LOTS. They are great machines but admit ably not perfect. |
Air 5 ,
Lu was Lu Zuckerman( I havn't seen him on the Pprune for some time I hope he is still around, for he was very ill) however it seems that he had spent many years working in the Aviation construction industry and whilst he was not a Pilot, he did have a very sound engineering background, his attitude to the Robinson Helis was to say the least a little biased, in fact I cannot remember seeing anywhere any praise from him regarding the fact that F Robinson had brought Helis within the grasp on many erstwhile earthlings who wished to fly the only worthwile sort of flying I know, on a lot of occasion he was ruthlessly treated by many individuels but he never lost it nor resorted to name calling, he was able to doggedly keep a subject alive by constantly refusing to back down( he must have been hell to work with) I am but a mere PPL(H) and found some of his posts were well worthy of attention, remember it takes alsorts to run this world of our and he knew an awful lot more than I ever will! So despite your comments about Doctors, I suppose you could say he was an "Elder Statesman" of the Rotorheads Forum. I feel few will disagree! Many regards Peter R-B Vfr Thankyou Tinnie for correcting my mistaken tense, and lack of knowledge regarding Lu Zuckerman. I have altered the tense where needed, also I offer my very sincere late condolences to Lu's family, may he rest in peace . |
Peter. Regarding 'LU', I believe he passed away a few months back. Hope my post is correct and if not, very sorry 'LU' :ouch: |
You are right - Lu is no longer with us....:(
|
Robinson Safety Courses
Does anyone have any feed back on the Robinson safety courses run by Mornington- Sanford Aviation?
|
I did it with them back in 2001.
Learned lots of things I had not been taught for the PPL. It is, I recall, only about R22/R44. Well worth doing, if you value safety. pvm |
Very good. :D As close as you'll get to the 'factory course' in the UK.
Even worthwhile if you don't fly Robinsons. A very useful post-PPL (or even pre-CPL) course that covers lots of issues relating to flying any helicopter, not just R22/R44. HTH, B73 |
I have been on both the Torrence course and Richards course. The Torrence course is excellent on the mechanical side of the R22 but Richard really knows his stuff on the Icing side!!
An absolute must if your a 22 or 44 driver. Even if its just the videos that make you realise how quick these things can bite you in the ass if you misrespect them. You can never have too much knowledge and you can never beat refresher courses! R22 :ok: |
Robinson safety course
In a couple of weeks I am attending a Robinson safety course headed by Tim Tucker in Scotland.I have attended one before at sloanes about 8 years ago but am looking forward to learning anything more that I can especially where safety is concerned. Any tips or suggestions on what to look for or ask about ?.Will be happy to report on my experience if anyone interested.
EDITED to add do you guys and gals think it's worth attending this type of course.I thought it was when I did the original one . R |
Hi Rinker,
I'm going to attend one of these when I get around to it- will probably be at Sloane or Cambridge as neither is too far from me. I take it you got some useful info from it if you're attending a second? I'd be interested to learn of your experience when you've finished. cheers Si |
Save up for a cheap flight to the USA and take the Factory course at the factory. The tour of the facility is worth the cost of the plane ride alone.
|
I did the course with Tim Tucker a year ago and it was worth every cent. I learnt about a lot about other types as well as Robbies. I now look at the R22 and 44 in a whole new light when preflighting and even as an Engineer i've found the knowledge gained invaluble when working on them too. If I could justify the cost I would love to have a look around the factory sometime.
|
In regards to the comment about learning more about the R22/44, while that may be true, I found a vast majority of the topics covered at the safety course to be generic to any rotorcraft. Most of the ways people kill (or hurt) themselves in Robinsons are not exclusive.
Actually, one of my after action comments was that I thought I'd learn more about the R44 and its systems (i.e. Bell 206 Initial). I found it to be an excellent safety refresher. Not just a R44 lesson. Hoss |
Flights with Tim
I did the RHC course with Tim in the early 80s, when he recounted a tale, where an instructor, having told his passenger to disembark and arrange the refuelling, then leapt thoughtlessly into the hover. From the LH seat.
This of course places the C of G too far left, and full right cyclicwill not stop the left drift. Being a man of "belated foresight" he then decided to hover sideways around the corner, to avoid crashing outside the FAA's offices. But on the way, he found that by lying across the RIGHT seat, the drift could be arrested, and a safe landing made. Which instructor? Ask Tim. thekite |
You could ask him - how come he doesn't leave the collective up for at least two seconds in an EOL?- like some blokes who have been on Pprune reckon they do.
He may just tell you how long it took him to learn how to hold it for the regulation one second. |
Tims Flights
TeT:
I'm a little rusty on the finer points of EOL. Regarding 1 second/2 second pitch pull; "please explain?" thekite |
The Kite,
sorry , shoddy explanantion, I mean sitting there with the collective still up - AFTER - the engine has hypothetically quit. He relays that he has this very BIG (roll the eyes now) clock on the panel which indicates ~ and records for the big time FAA boys ~ just how quickly, or slowly, he puts the lever down. .98 seconds delay , easy, the regulation one full second, not so easy. cheers tet |
to TeT
Thanks for that: I recently posted on a thread "how long have you got?" (after the engine quits.)
I said that in my days as a R22 instructor, I would often chop the throttle if the student dared to take his/her hand off the throttle during climb. And I never once kept the revs in the green, even though I dumped the collective myself. Graphic? You bet. Necessary? I think so. Dangerous?????? Can I say: I was much younger then. But in a sense, nearer to death than I am now. thekite |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:55. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.