flat pitch blade angle is a function of autorotation rpm. It is rigged to produce the appropriate rpm in autorotation for a particular GW and DA. I have never seen one that has a negative angle of attack... obviously I have not rigged all aircraft ever produced, but I've done more than a few.

Humans learn best from practicing skills, not from obeying rules. By the true nature of learning, perhaps Americanadians should or shall become the better pilots at the end? BB, good old Blighty is as much Shakespeare as it always was. Just is it comedy or tragedy?

I recall VF stating that Ops Manual allowed it. He is a thorough driver.

I wonder whether the differences of opinion in this discussion are to some extent influenced by the fact that (professional) helicopter flying in the UK is predominantly military, off-shore transport, emergency services and executive transport with very little 'utility' flying of the sort very common in some other parts of the world.


We know, from several threads on this topic over the years, that leaving helicopters unattended with rotors turning is a widespread practice in some parts of the world.
We also know that there are sometimes accidents as a result.
Is there evidence of a high number of accidents relative to the frequency of the practice?

The EC135 battery overheat drill originally required the pilot to land, lock the controls, get out and inspect the battery for signs of overheating. It changed with the introduction of current European legislation.

Oh yes, and the cyclic lock was removed after someone in a distant part of the World tried to take off from a rooftop helipad with it still locked!

Before the UK takes all the blame for over-regulation, I should point out that what we work to now, is the illegitimate love child of 30 odd European legal systems.

TeeS

The fact that a pilot leaving the controls while turning and burning is illegal in some circumstances isn't pertinent. It is/was legal at the decisive point in this event. Pilots doing so is not uncommon in some places. It is done routinely and safely where permitted.

Shakespeare understood the Human Animal and perhaps as long as we do not learn to laugh at tragedy we will survive.

It would seem this debate as others before it, has evolved to a discussion about "Rules", their derivation, implementation, and effect.

We also see as usual, varying opinions and attitudes towards the needs for "Rules".

Way deep down in the argument there exists a notion that ordinary commonsense and judgement should be the underlying basis for all "Rules".

Just as in Criminal Law, there must be some moral basis to the "Law", or in this case "Rule", or else the People will tend to ignore or violate the "Law" as they see it having no merit or basis for being.

Flying Lawyer echoes my thoughts about the situation at hand.

TeeS has presented us with some contradictions and considerations to consider regarding "Rules" in EASA Land.

The Kool Aid Acid Test for "Rules" should be to determine if there needs to be a "Rule" to begin with, closely followed by a determination of what the "Rule" is supposed to accomplish, and thirdly to determine that the new "Rule" does no harm (Remembering the Law of Un-intended Consequences).

One Man's Opinion is the UK and EASA Land have far two many "Rules", too many that are poorly written, and far too much harm gets done by that situation.

The good side of all that is folks like FL make a very good living sorting out the mess that results.

Irrespective of what rules may apply, the decision to leave the helicopter with the rotors under power (idle or otherwise) is an act of making a choice. All choices come with one or more tradeoffs. Some of the tradeoffs associated with this choice include saving time, saving engine cycles, etc, but other tradeoffs include some increase in risk, even when done "properly." How much risk is open to debate. Accident reports show that it is not always done properly and that the risk can be more than is understood. And, this type of event, even though preventable in many cases, seems to keep on happening even though rules, flight manuals, etc call some degree of attention to the risk involved.

My flight operations manual generally requires a qualified pilot in the PIC seat with hands on cyclic and collective when rotors are turning. Works for me, but perhaps not for all.

This is the second accident i have ever heard of. I think you may being exaggerating a bit.




In my view, many of us here do single pilot operations without any ground support, and this may be necessary to do under some circunstances where rules permit. From what i have read in this thread most pilots agree with that.

i believe that people crash cars driving over 100 km/h (60mph) in Germany on the Autobahns. Do we all jump up and down saying those guys are idiots, thats illegal, you aren't allowed to drive that fast!!

Or do we look at it and say oh yeah the Germans have different speed limits to us, so maybe it was legal.

same thing here i would think, different laws, different countries.


it has happened a few times, a B2 and BA as well as a 120 in NZ. I'm sure that there are others.

In the 80s, an R22 in NT was running roughly, the pilot landed on the only clear area, a rock pinnacle to investigate. He left it running at idle, control friction on, carefully climbed out onto right skid, crouched down to look at engine.

Stepped off the skid to change viewpoint, saw that the vibrations from the rough engine were causing the machine to skip around a little, and on the rough rock, headed towards the downhill side of things. He tried to pull it back, got pulled along himself. Said to himself: "SELF!! WTF are you DOING???" and let go of it.

it skipped to the edge of the rock and threw itself off the cliff. Pilot looks at mess at bottom... ooops...will the Streaker's Defence* work for him?




*Streaker's Defence = "It seemed like a good idea at the time!"

As quoted before this operation is expressly forbidden in the RFM.

An Operations Manual instruction cannot overrule it.

The RFM would require a Supplement. A Supplement might even require an STC as the RFM springs from the TC.

How many B3 operators here are aware of the MANDATORY requirement for 2 headsets and a functioning ICS?
Apparently the FAA doesn't if you read their MMEL.

Super F,

Poor analogy - Death rate in Germany per 100,000 inhabitants is approximately half your native country and they
drive twice your speed limit most of the time. Better roads, better cars, better drivers - different attitude.

The RFM prohibits you just the same in NZ as anywhere else. A while back this was raised by your CAA and had a few people scratching their heads.

Also as previously mentioned, the requirements vary across the 350 models.

Might it be the Germans drive in the correct side of the road for a start?


Perhaps one Statistic you might consider is the percentage of Fatal Accidents for those Autobahn car crashes as you might find yourself leading the Pack in that regard directly due to the Speed at which you drive on the Bahn's.

The key is that such behavior is quite legal on the Autobahn. As was what we are talking about here.

Necessary or not, this is a choice you are making and it comes with increased risk. In making this choice, you are accepting the increased risk. Some have been and some will be bitten by making such a choice.

Isn't that just part of Life?

You pays your money, you takes your chances!

You ever worked in -45F weather where you are the only Helicopter in 500 miles and you have no contact with the outside World?

You want to shut down and hope the engine starts on that mountain side that is 50-60 miles from the nearest Tent, Hut, or warmth?

Compare the discussion about the R-66 making a Precautionary Landing due to Weather and think about the difference in the two situations.

Some are thinking the R-66 folks were in serious trouble.

And think about the REAL difference between operating 500 miles from support in -45 and then operating in the Grand Canyon.

In one situation you have no real options, in the other you have plenty - an action born out of necessity is not the same as one made by choice.

Get over the pioneer stuff Bob (we all get that) and accept this guy really didn't need to put himself at risk.

True in some respects! Driving to the airport to fly a helicopter involves taking risk, and the risk increases from there. Truly "professional" pilots, whether they fly for pay or not, have a well developed set of skills for managing risk. They are proactive in understanding risk and thoughtful about what risks to accept and when. These skills are not uniformly distributed in the pilot population. They are typically acquired through study, training, and experience, with experience probably the most effective teacher.

Crab,

It isn't Pioneer stuff as you seem to think. It is going on today as we speak and will go on in the future.

Unless and until you know the full facts of the situation in the Canyon that day, you are making assumptions based on ignorance of the situation.

Perhaps where he landed is a single aircraft landing site with nothing but the Colorado River and steep walled canyon surrounding the site. Sight Seeing helicopters do not have Winches you might recall.

I would suggest you consider there was no prohibition for him to have done what he did, not in Law, Regulation, or Policy.

What you need to "get" is things are different outside the UK and we have a much different mindset about operating helicopters than does the CAA and EASA.

Monday Morning Quarter Backing is always fraught with peril.

I suppose you will be bashing the R-66 Pilot for making a Precautionary Landing as he did. After all, one could say he put his passengers at risk by flying in weather that he could not guarantee making it to the Destination. That would be just as unfair as your criticism of the Canyon Pilot as you don't know the details of how that R-66 came to be where he was when he landed out.

Yes all us Brits get that as well.

Your Monday morning quarterback position is that he was completely justified in all his actions - despite the lack of evidence to say so........ mine (and others) is that he might have made a mistake doing what he did where he did - I haven't condemned him out of hand, just suggested that, in the cold light of day it is possible that he made a wrong choice rather than being forced into getting out due to operational complexities.

Considering the outcome, there is no argument he made the "wrong" choice.

My position is he was free to make whatever decision he wished in this as there were no legal prohibitions (that we know of) to forbid him doing as he did.

If it was the exact right decision will have to be decided after weighing all of the factual evidence and not just assuming One knows what actually transpired.

I recall folks saying much the same about the Glasgow Crash saying we should all wait for the AAIB to report out what happened and why.

So why not in this one?

The poor dead guy has been called a Darwin Award Candidate and criticized for what he did by you Brits despite the Regulations being quite different in the USA, but that did not seem to deter y'all from making the comments you did.

It appears you just do not like being called out for that.

We saw the same thing happen when the MH-60 crashed in Norfolk too.

Even Flying Lawyer has commented on the tendency of you folks in the UK to attack one other Pilots when things happen and I see him as being quite and honest and candid fellow.

As an indication of how he views matters, read his Post which did not seem to draw any criticism or discussion.


I wonder whether the differences of opinion in this discussion are to some extent influenced by the fact that (professional) helicopter flying in the UK is predominantly military, off-shore transport, emergency services and executive transport with very little 'utility' flying of the sort very common in some other parts of the world.


Would it not be a breath of fresh air if all of you over there could be as fair and equitable in your comments?

He is British and can politely consider Helicopter Operations in the UK with an Open Mind. More of you should do the same i would suggest.