R22 crash at EGTC today !
 

was at Cranfield today and saw an R22 lying on its side, occupants uninjured, looked like a Cabair one, maybe as a result of an engine off that didnt quite work (allegedly)

any news on may have happened?

Cabair are having a bad time did'nt they roll one at Denham fairly recently?

KEEP IT STRIAGHT WITH THE PEDALS!!!!!

Any idea on who was on board ?

Cyclic Flare,

Dont think it was Denham. I dont think there have been any incidents/accidents there for quite a while <reaches out and touches piece of two by four!>

:\

Glad that the folks onboard walked away unhurt!

By my reckoning, Cabair's last prang was an all red R22 on weekend of January 17/18 at Elstree (not Denham)

I saw the crash
 

I was onsite and was watching the R22 attempting a practice forced landing (autorotation ??) and saw it hit the ground with its skids then jump back into the air about 10 feet then rolled to left with the rotors hitting the ground and crashing. Both instructor and student were uninjured.

Fixed wing are sooo much safer !!!!!!

Of course no -one ever made a boo-boo doing forced landing in a plank.....

p l o n k e r.

Thing is though do you think touchdown autos should be part of the PPL syllabus? So many aircraft lost, though thankfully not too many injuries, due to this.

Yet in normal ppl flying so few engine failures. If you can get it into auto, drive it to a clear level field and do a flare your're pretty likey to walk away. These parts of the manoever, can be practised ad nauseam with very little risk and are, in my mind so much more important.

Whirly

Totally agree. I'm sick of seeing good machines wrecked doing EOLs which puts up my insurance premiums and risks students and instructors lives. The school I trained with have lost/ severely damaged 3 aircraft in the past 3 or 4 years doing this and frankly I'm surprised that when I was a student some of my landings did not damage the aircraft in the full hour of EOLs I did just before my GFT. (Come to think of it, that aircraft was later wrecked!). I wonder how many engine failures they have had in the same time. Now I have my own aircraft I do autos to the hover regularly but not to the ground - too much unnecessary risk for my taste.

In the event of a real power failure we would all like to walk away from an undamaged aircraft but the ability to do it under ideal contitions with an instructor does not guarantee success on rough terrain.

I think that when I was a low time pilot, despite doing dozens of EOLs with an instructor, a real failure would have been pretty messy. The improved handling skills aquired with since then make me confident that unless I pick a rotten landing site, all will be well - even though I no longer practice them. This implies that practising them is pretty pointless.

We probably all have seen the video of the police helicopter at night. If they can walk away from the aircraft with that sort of rate of descent then with a flare or pull of any sort, the outcome is likely to be that the occupants live even if the a/c is wrecked.

I recall reading somewhere that it is the entry to autorotation that kills people, yet the unexpected throttle chop is not practiced at PPL level anymore (is it?) because the risk of death is too high if it goes wrong.
The implication is that it is acceptable to risk writing off the aircraft to give a student experience of something very unlikely to happen. If rolling an R22 frequently killed poeple it would not be allowed.

Certainly practice to the hover. Maybe let the instructor or examiner demonstrate to the ground.
Surely it is time students don't do this anymore.

Do military students still do them?

Incoming!

Whirlycopter

Yes, I do think touchdown autos should be part of the PPL syllabus. I did Engine Off Landings through most of my PPL training in the UK and have since been exposed to autos with recovery in ground effect.

I accept that in the likes of an R22, the entry into autorotation is the most important factor in surviving an engine failure. However I want to know that I can complete an EOL to a satisfactory stop, not that I can merely enter autorotation, turn into wind, get to my landing site, flare and then forget my usual trained response and do something different at the bottom.

Some instructors like EOLs, some don't. Flying cultures vary around the world, but where EOLs are practiced, in machines they may be practiced in, I suspect the reasons for varying enthusiasm amongst instructors are primarily competence, currency and the resulting confidence. I'm not knocking those who don't like them, but I'd rather be instructed by someone who is happy to do them than someone who isn't.

Gaseous

Insurance may also affect teaching of EOLs, I don't know. If EOLs are a real insurance issue, I guess you may get a cheaper rate if practice autos to ground are excluded. I'd rather pay a higher premium and practice EOLs than pay a lower one and be limited to autos with recovery.

Doesn't it imply that you think practicing them now, ie EOL currency, is pretty pointless? How would you feel about them now if you hadn't done loads as a student?


As an aside, I initially found EOLs easier than normal landings!

FlyAnotherDay

Full Touch Down Autorotations
 

I have read this thread with interest. Firstly I have absolutly no expirence on the R22 Helicopter, but would just like to add a point of view reagarding Autorotations. I teach in the Bell 47. Autorotations I feel are an important factor in PPL training. The 47 is incredibly versatile in the auto, you can back them up, extend the glide range, and decend vertically to land. I do not expect a student to pull off a perfect autorotation in the unlikely event of an engine failure, but however, feel they should be able land and walk away from one. The student should therefore be well prepared for that eventuality. I also have this tendancy not to fly over anything I can't land on, thus I feel easying the stress off 'where am I going to go now' when the donkey quits.

I understand there has been great debate on full touch down Auto training, I do see both sides of the coin, but feel full touchdown autorotations are a must in training. Before I send any of my students on solo flights I make sure they can perfom this manoever, it's not pretty, but they have the concept.
Apologise for the spelling, 21st century computer, 18th century brain!! and if the moderator call fit a spell check on this that would make things great for me!! Keep healthy debate alive..

Darren

I also think that EOLs should be part of the PPL syllabus. My instructor seemed to be quite fond of them (along with tail rotor failure landings) but was always v. careful to make sure that the wind was around 10 kts and always covered the controls. Sometimes, when I thought an EOL went particularly well, he would say "That was mostly me!". That final bit of flare, flare, check, level is a bit hairy at first and I think it should be taught otherwise in a real situation, it would be so easy to panic even though the skills should be there.

Cheers

Whirlygig

Fly Another

Quote: As an aside, I initially found EOLs easier than normal landings!


Exactly. it is not hard to do - until it goes wrong.

The problem is that when it goes wrong it goes wrong very badly, very quickly and very unpredicatably, One of the aircraft lost at my school was being flown by a 10,000+ hour instructor. I know the student wasn't flying as it was a demonstration EOL in a trial lesson! I bet it put the prospective pilot off. Another was being flown by a CAA examiner (So I was told) when the tail was chopped. This would seem to indicate that experience and currency is not a guarantee of success. Both you and I could rattle them off as students. Not because we were good. Because we were not unlucky. In the last year, I have done one auto to the ground and that was during my LPC because I was asked to. No problem. I still don't practice them. Had I not done them as a student, would I still be able to do them? Of course, as proved by pilots who don't do them as students in lots of places in the world.

My theory on the whole issue is:
In the scenario of a real failure a student who has practiced getting the aircraft to the hover is likely to survive and may or may not wreck the aircraft. The aircraft is not important. As engine failure is pretty rare, this will not be a common occurence. If no aircraft are lost in training there will be fewer crashes and hence less overall risk to pilots and machines.
I think auto to the hover practice is vital. To the ground is unnecessary risk.

I think that this is the position of the RAF. Can anyone confirm?

Perhaps someone with too much time could dredge through NTSB and AAIB reports and compare number of aircraft/lives lost though engine failure with numbers due to practices gone wrong. I'm sure the statistics are there.


edited to add that I can't spell either.

I used to be a flight instructor and did hundreds of EOL's with students and demonstrated them even in trial lessons if the people were up for them and were properly informed about what was going to happen in fact every time we came back from the local area we did one if we had a bit of wind and werent to heavy.

at the time where I was there was a culture of doing them a lot, it was sort of "rite of passage" to being considered an experienced instructor,and we all were very current.

after flying a few years in a twin IFR enviroment where we never do them cos it is an unneccesary risk to the a/c and we got 2 engines anyway so are unlikely to ever have a double engine failure.

I have come round to the opinion that they should not be required for the PPL, I think a good auto to the power recovery is sufficient and absolutely agree with Gaseous.

I think doing EOLs on a trial lesson is probably one of the best things for the prospective trainee to do , my reasons are the following;

1. Most peoples perception of a helicopter is that if the engine stops you are going to die, very important to remove that myth, in a controlled manner.

2. If they are looking at going the whole way (reason for a doing a trial lesson) Then they should be shown what to expect during the syllabus.

Well, this thread may be being passed over as we’ve had some thread drift.

Gaseous, maybe EOLs are easy… when you’ve been practicing them and everything is in your favour.

EOLs have been described as a perishable skill. They are in my hands.

Having had a look at the archives, opinion is divided on the question of EOL or auto with recovery. Here's one thread (conveniently;) I can’t find one that’s particularly anti-EOL just now).

I haven’t searched the accident reports, but have come across the belief in the archives that no deaths have occurred in practice EOLs that were fouled up at the bottom. I’m not aware of any deaths from practice autos or EOLs fouled up elsewhere in the exercise, either.

EOL practice is emergency training. To practice EOLs to the ground or to auto with recovery instead is a risk management question. Me? I’ll take the EOLs, thank you.

Well I think that reinforces my point.

If no one died by ballsing up a practice EOL and rolling a robbie over then what is the point of writing off aircraft practicing?
:confused:

I just had a look at AAIB

of the 82 reported accidents to Robinsons since 1996, practice autorotations have been responsible for 12 accidents af varying severity. No one died. Most caused substantial damage or worse to aircraft.

Engine failure due to mechanical failure: One fatal
Carb Ice, mast bumping, no fuel - about 12- some uncertain.
most of these caused loss of aicraft.
CFIT 2
Wire 3
instrument failure 1
The rest, dynamic rollover mishandling etc.

Very few successful autos are reported (i.e. no airframe damage)- about 5. I appreciate that probably some will not have made it onto AAIBs site if there was no damage other than to the engine.



So 15% of all Robbie accidents occur practicing a safety excercise that often doesn't work when needed. Hmm.

Gaseous, the miltary do train all helicopter pilots in full EOLs - the difference is in the choice of aircraft to do it in. The Squirrel is an excellent training aircraft that gives loads of latitude for cock-up during EOLs whereas the R22 isn't and doesn't.
I used to instruct student QHIs at CFS(H) and despite the fact that they had all been taught EOLs on the Gazelle during basic training, most had never actually flown one because the instructor was always following through so closely. Thus the difficulty was in getting their confidence up and demystifying EOLs so that they could be sent solo to practise them and then be able to teach a real student how to do them.
Without getting into another pi**ing contest over the R22 (and yes I do have it on my licence) the reason so many are lost during training to EOLs is that it is not an easy machine to do them in - certainly not when compared to a Bell 47, 206, Squirrel, Gazelle.
If you are confident that you can PFL and EOL then that is great, but I suggest you are in a minority when it comes to private owners. PPL is a very basic level of competence and very few owners/pilots ever take any post graduate instruction to improve or just retain their handling skills.
I'm with Flyanotherday - I think EOLs are a perishable skill and need constant practise - it's easy to convince yourself you would have walked away from an auto to the hover had it been a real EOL but "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the stopping at the bottom."

In the real world you can't ignore the impact the R22 EOL training accidents have on their insurance premiums. My gut feel in the UK would suggest that at least 75% of trashed R22s occur through such training, so that might suggest R22 premiums might be no more than half of what they are if EO training was done to the hover.

I can't help but feel that the added risk to accidents of EO training to the hover is really very low given that (a) real engine failures are very, very rare, and (b) when they do occur most R22s/R44s seem to get heavily damaged anyway. Admittedly one doesn't hear about the real, successful ones - maybe we can get an indication now. Who in the UK has had a real R22/44 engine failure and not damaged the acft?

Maybe someone with some knowledge of the insurance industry could comment too?

It's all very well for 1000 hour plus pilots to say EOLs are not necessary but from my perspective, very necessary. I have done a few and find them buttock-clenching to say the least but if I hadn't done any as part of the PPL syllabus and my engine failed, there is NO WAY I would get out of it alive however good the entry into autorotation. However, at least this way, I feel as if I might have a fighting chance.

Cheers

Whirlygig

PS - can't comment on R22 as I did my training in a Schweizer which seems to be robust enough to be dumped on the ground at speed and with a bit of force :) However, you can't have a training syllabus for one aircraft and a different one for others.

Crab
I am only confident because I fly a much more forgiving aircraft than a Robbie.

AAIB data suggests that it is the other end of a real autorotation that kills people. The aircraft lost due to carb icing and other power failures which resulted in a fatality broke up in the air due to low rotor RPM. There are no cases where autorotation was achieved which resulted in a fatality. Almost all real autorotations ended with rolling the aircraft suggesting all that landing practice doesn't help much. The crashworthiness of R22s under these circumstances is a real credit to Robinson.

During my own training there was always lots of warning of entry into autorotation. The throttle chop was never practised or demonstrated yet this is the part of a real autorotation that actually kills people. Too risky to practise according to my instructor.

The last bit of an EOL may be buttock clenching/exciting/easy depending on your point of view. What seems clear from AAIB is that it is not particularly dangerous to people but is risky to the health of your aircraft.

I remain unconvinced that full EOL practise at student PPL level is an enhancement to flight safety.

Just a personal point of view.