Lol, nice one. Nigel has a similar problem in that when he opens his hangar door he can't get in because the chips on his shoulder are too highly stacked :ok:

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Nigel - my dear old loved one. Many moons ago pprune did this conversation to death. (dead mans curve).
I've carried out well in excess of 2500 autos of which 1500 were engine offs in a single, atleast half were in the 100 - 200' band, many were at low speed, some in excess of 100+ kts.
None were carried out knowingly inside the dead mans curve.
And the reason for that is the military actually pay attention to what the test pilots say when they devise these charts. We 'assume' they are paid to fly the a/c close to the edge and occasionally beyond. We even flew with them on occasion to further understand their reasoning.
Of course civvies don't get these experiences for obvious reasons. Test pilots don't grow on trees. Test pilots don't invent charts like this for a laugh.

This curve advises the operator of the helicopter that given an average pilot on an average day with average reactions in nil wind - should the donk stop, the odds are stacked against him/her and either the helicopter will strike the ground causing damage (heavy landing) and or everything in between up to killing the pilot. Statistics are littered with these results.

There are several operators out there who LIVE inside the HVC. I recall having a conversation with a vet from this industry offline - as a result of our online debate. He has spent most of his professional life living inside the curve. And he is still alive, god bless.

It's not to say that it is a forbidden - no-go zone. It's not to say it will kill you every time, it is suggesting that when the donk stops and the pilot is anything OTHER than sh*t hot - he/she will come a cropper.

Apart from the fact that if an aviation lawyer found out you were operating inside this zone when the lights went out - your claim might look shakey,
people like you must wake up and smell the coffee.

Just because you have flown inside the HVC dozens of times without a mishap, doesn't mean to say you are safe. You are not safe Nigelh please remember that and joking aside - have a long hard think about it when you have a quiet moment (and I know you will). Your bravado about your lightning quick reactions/second nature/instinctive actions will not prevent you from coming a cropper one day - believe me.

For all other civvies who don't court this chart or aren't familiar with the machinations of it. Take a long hard look at the curve - It's NOT mandatory, it is advisory (based on considerable test data and experimentation by people far more capable than you will ever be )look at your flying behaviour and compare. Do you often fly inside the curve (take off, landing and low level) or with just a small tweak to your flight path and speeds - do you fly just outside it.

The difference could mean avoiding a hefty insurance claim or worse still - killing your family if they are onboard when the donk stops and you happen to be inside the curve at the time. Dramatic enough for you!

And please, Nigel those of us who know you, know you are a very capable helicopter pilot - please bear in mind that when you speak on here - some actually listen, so let's cut the crap and provide solid feedback so they can learn from it.:)

TC

A superb post but just bear in mind we all have to go into the avoid curve ( dead mans curve, height velocity diagram, call it what you will) for many reasons.
Training for vertical take off and landing for instance with a ppl. Is it unsafe to go into the avoid curve ? Well like everything in life it is down to what we now call threat and error management or what is better called airmanship or perhaps better still common sense. Realistically the pilot is more likely to cock up the landing or take off in a vertical take off scenario than for the engine to actually stop. It is rare these days for engines to stop, biggest reason is running out of fuel !
At work I spend most of my day in the avoid curve lifting with a 50 ft line on the heli. Reason, it is safer for the ground crew and much quicker to hook 6 bags on to a carousel then on to a belly hook, ironically especially if the donk does give up !
I think with the standards of training these days where students aren't even taught to do EOL's to the ground let alone autos from close / inside the avoid curve most have no idea of the threats of operating inside the curve. Thus they don't actually realise the problems they are putting themselves in as they have a " it won't happen to me scenario as my instructor never showed me"
You have had the luxury like some of having had military training, not sure you have experienced the quality of training on the civvy side but I am afraid it can be woeful

The trouble with you guys , TC and Syd , is that you both come across as being arrogant old farts who who know everything ! I am just trying to redress the balance a little when you come out with statements that come straight from a rule book . As I said earlier , I agree with the sentiment about trying to avoid things such as HV curve but to say " never fly in it " is unrealistic . Which is better when coming into a confined area ....barrelling in at 50knots to stay out of it ...or come to a hover , check power and slowly descend ( which would put you in the curve !) .
I'm sorry Syd if you think that makes me " chippy " .
You guys have a lot of experience between you but both have a very poor bedside manner and that doesn't help get people on your side ..... So how about trying a nicer approach to educate us poor untrained civvies and we may just listen !!

I think what comes down to is that if your operation does not require you to be flying inside the shaded área of the HV diagram you shouldn't be there, especially if you are carrying passengers. Every time I find myself flying inside the HV diagram unnecessarily a caution alarm thought goes out in my mind and i fly myself out of there.

Mmmm, another case of not actually reading what someone is posting :rolleyes:

I think you'll find my 'statement straight from the book' was;

"Use of Chart:
Caution:
Observe the cross−hatched regions of the Height Velocity Diagram.
These represent airspeed/altitude combinations from which a
successful autorotation landing would be difficult to perform.
Operation within the cross−hatched area is not prohibited, but
should be avoided."


So, where does it say, 'never fly in it'? :confused:


I think it is quite clear; old farts like TC and myself are only trying to prevent some rotorheads that are reading these posts, from falling into the traps that others don't recognise as traps.

U-turn of the thread;

TC, H500 & S_P put it well :ok:

Nooooo! Cant be! Say it isnt so! ;)

Nigel you were in grave danger of displaying some rapport there, how dare you :)

3 of my pet subjects are poorly understood by civvy pilots:

The Avoid Curve
Tail rotor failures
Vortex ring state

Forgive me if I am want to impart my experiences coming from a gene pool of probably the best trained helicopter pilots in the world (how is that for arrogance?).
Not only do British military pilots get the best training in the world, they get inputs from manufacturers, test facilities and test pilots that civvy pilots (on the whole) either cannot access or cannot afford.
Mil pilots have access to crash data, simulators and personal experiences that are second to none.
Please dont confuse my experience and flying education as arrogance.
I simply wish to pass onto others what I had - passed onto me when I was going through the learning process, that's all. Light out now, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite xx..................:ok:

T.c.
I'm a civvy pilot and I understand those 3 pet subjects very well!:)

I am a civvy pilot whose first solo (fixed wing) was in 1966, and have transitioned to helicopters more recently. I dont fly for money, so some here would dismiss me as not being a "professional." However, I go to considerable lengths to live up to the notion of "professional" apart from compensation. One thing I have learned in fifty years of flying is that there is always more to learn. Tail rotor failures and VRS are topics of high current interest for me. I'd welcome any and all links to additional information on these topics. I have found some useful info here using the search function, but this tends to be disjointed and not too portable. Any place this is available in a more organized form?

TC ( and you Syd !!) .......there is an awful lot that you say that I agree with but what I don't agree with is your method of imparting that knowledge . Your method is to firstly play the military card . ( I have loads of mil pilot friends . Some are useless in the civvy world , some are excellent and I have employed quite a few over the years . On balance I don't see any difference in their ability .) .
Next you try to humiliate people with your view of their lack of knowledge and get personal ...( that's fine with me ...I own my own helicopters and employ people like you and enjoy the banter . Others I fear just get frightened off so are no longer around to pick up your valuable advice )
There are so many gotchas out there ,I think we should concentrate on the big ones ....flying in poor viz leading to CFIT , spacial disorientation , LTE , vortex ring to name a few , these are the things that kill people . I am sorry but flying at 20-30 ft every now and then in an appropriate place is fun , ... We all do it . Every mil pilot I have flown with does it ! I'm not aware that it is inherently dangerous , especially if you know the ground re wires . I am not aware of any crashes involving engine failure while flying at low level . Equally doing a power check on every single approach to hover or land just doesn't happen in the real world ....we all look at our power settings during climb out as standard .
So just pick the things that matter and get people engaged , rather than enraged !! Nite Nite

All I was trying to do there nigelh was use a bedside manner......you've obviously not been cuddled enough as you missed the hyperbole?
William sends his regards by the way ;)

Nigel, I have never 'played the military card' on pprune and those that know me will tell you that I don't play that mil/civ game of yours.

As for trying to humiliate people with your view of their lack of knowledge and get personal . I only quote what is said, so if you say something incorrect or simply ridiculous then of course people 'like me' will pick up on it. (thought you said you enjoy the banter) That is how we prevent the unknowing from reading what some say is 'the way we do things' and then going out and killing themselves based on the impression you have given them ... a prime example is included in your last post;

1. We don't all do it!
2. It's not only wires that will get you!
3. How can you possibly think it's not inherently dangerous!
4. What about the recent Flamborough Head incident with two fatalities!

You seem to have a distorted view of military low flying.
To generalise; Flights were always authorised with an MSD. Very rarely would it be lower than 250' and if on a 'tactical sortie' would 100' Agl/50' MSD for the snurgelling phase. Operationally heights would be 'not above' a specified height for airspace management reasons. So this picture you have of mil helicopters wazzing around at 25' just for the fun if it and because they can, is imaginative at best.

However, I appreciate that doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen, and as I said earlier; dance with Lady Luck too often and she'll step on your toes .... you must remember the Puma at Catterick https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...a_za934_si.pdf

Oh yes;
I wondered when that was going to rear its head again :rolleyes:

Hold on a mo, earlier you said; I agree if the air is thinner due to high terrain, that should be taken into account, but the graph does not show this.

If you understand the subject "very well" you would know that 'The height velocity diagram is based on sea level, standard day conditions, over a smooth hard surface at a specific gross weight.' you would also know that there would be a seperate chart allowing you to 'calculate the reduction in gross weight required as a function of density altitude in order for the Height Velocity curve to apply'.

So why do you say that the graph doesn't take into account "thinner air", or as we would normally refer to it in the aviation industry, density altitude, if you understand it so well?'
:confused:

Sid ..... This is pointless as you take no notice of what I am saying !! Re read my post and think . I stand by what I say . Flying low level on well known home turf is not " dangerous " . It is totally different to the incident flying en route over the sea ....which IS dangerous !!!! Also your Mil low level is enroute probably over unknown terrain ....wazzing along at 25ft WOULD be dangerous !!! I ask again are you aware of any accident ever happening from engine failure flying low level on home turf over safe flat terrain that you know well ?? I seem to recall loads of quick stops done at 20-30ft with instructors at airfields presumably you have never done that either ??
Bored now , over and out !!

TC . I'm happy with the banter but play nicely !! We are ,after all, all on the same side when it comes to the safety of our fellow pilots . If we really wanted to make a difference we should force the CAA to review their stance on such things as en route ifr without full ifr rating , such as fixed wing IMC . Mandatory instrument training in actual IMC , even if just for 1 hr to experience first hand disorientation . Synthetic vision , affordable autopilots etc etc etc But nothing has been done to address this over the last 30 years !!!

Does the Norfolk Pavehawk crash count? Oh and the Coln McRae crash report makes good reading on this topic.

And there's this;
"Although the pilot was familiar with the airstrip and was aware of the location of the powerlines, research by the ATSB has shown that an awareness of powerline location does not guarantee avoidance."
http://www.havarikommissionen.dk/ima...vel_flying.pdf

You seem fixated on the only danger being wires or engine failures, there are many other factors that are out there just waiting for you, such as;

Agusta A109C, N109TK
Near Kew Bridge.
While cruising at 150 kt at 750 ft agl a bird struck and shattered the left windshield. The commander, seated in the left seat, suffered minor injuries so the co-pilot took control and made a successful emergency landing.


Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle
Location:Rudding Park
Summary:
The pilot, was undertaking a helicopter flight with a passenger, in gusty wind conditions. He was seen flying slowly, at a low level, near a chalet he owned in the grounds of an hotel when the aircraft was seen to spin around, before pitching up and falling to the ground, fatally injuring the two occupants.

Perhaps 'dangerous' is too emotive and vague a term to be bandied around in this context - branding something simply as 'dangerous' or 'safe' is too binary when we all know there is a sliding scale of risk attached to aviation (as in most things in life).

So if you start with the premise that all aviation activities carry risk - which we make strident efforts to minimise through training, regulation, engineering practices etc - it is clear that some of those activities will carry additional risk.

Is flying close to the ground inherently 'dangerous'? clearly not becuase it is happening around the world all the time. Does it carry extra risk? Most certainly, or we would all be smashing around at 5' and 140 kts because that would be lots of fun.

However, most of us want to go home to our wives and family at the end of the day so such additional risks as wirestrike, inadvertant contact with the ground, birdstike, catastrophic mechanical failure (including engine failure) are taken into consideration and the sliding scale of risk (in this case lower and faster) is modified by our willingness to take on that extra risk and our reasons for doing so.

The message really is - can you fly inside the H-V curve? Yes.

Should you fly inside the H-V curve and how far into it do you go? Providing you have understood the additional risks and have a good reason for doing so then how far you push is a matter for a good risk vs reward assessment.

The danger is that pilots often have a greatly over-inflated opinion of their ability, especially in dealing with rapidly changing and dynamic situations and that is where people get suckered into the 'I can do this, I'm a great pilot' which can often become 'I've been doing this for years and it's been fine' right up to the point where it isn't.

The Colin Macrae incident is a case in point - over confidence and a history of showboating isn't a good recipe for safe low flying.

Crab good post, danger has levels you draw a line for your self as long as it does not impinge on others.

"Is flying close to the ground inherently 'dangerous'? clearly not because it is happening around the world all the time. Does it carry extra risk? Most certainly, or we would all be smashing around at 5' and 140 kts because that would be lots of fun.

However, most of us want to go home to our wives and family at the end of the day so such additional risks as wirestrike, inadvertent contact with the ground, birdstike, catastrophic mechanical failure (including engine failure) are taken into consideration and the sliding scale of risk (in this case lower and faster) is modified by our willingness to take on that extra risk and our reasons for doing so."

Good sensible post Crab , all of which I pretty much agree with !
However we were talking specifically about the avoid curve and specifically about engine failures . Sid has STILL not come up with any evidence of any crash ( there must be one over the last 30 years as its so dangerous ...!!) that is relevant to v low flying engine failures .
I made it clear as day that wazzing around hitting wires / trees / losing control were not relevant !!! If he can't find a few accidents directly due to low level engine failures within the avoid curve then I think it's fair to say that it's not inherently dangerous !!

Nigel, I'd be surprised if there were many (if any) instances where an engine failure or similar (belt fail on a Robbie perhaps) at low level has been the cause of an accident (fatal or not). Most low-level accidents are attributable to CFIT or, more usually, wires.

However, ignoring the H-V curve is fraught with danger and pilots must be aware of the extra risks involved when operating inside it. Chopjock's assertion that the flare will give you time to sort things out ignores the reality of the time it takes to recognise the failure and take corrective action, especially at speeds where there is little flare effect - say 60 kts and below - to save your backside.

Your best option for a succesful EOL is to be into wind, wings level, at your recommended autorotation speed with the minimum RoD possible and over a flat and level piece of ground suitable for the manoeuvre (or in the low hover). That doesn't mean to say you won't survive if those parameters aren't met but the further you are from them, the less and less likely even a gifted pilot is to be able to walk away.

If you are habitually operating outside those conditions then you would be very stupid not to recognise that you have ratcheted up the risk significantly both from the position and the extended exposure. Again, this isn't a problem if you are cognisant of the risk and try to mitigate it where possible.

The German Air Force used to teach pilots to raise the lever before flaring in the Huey in the event of an engine failure at very low level (NOE) to avoid smashing the tail in and making things worse. But that was in a very high inertia rotor system and the same technique in, say, an R22 wouldn't be appropriate as you would be counting the Nr in single figures very quickly.

Bottom line - the H-V curve is there for good reason - your safety:ok:

Nigelh: best we all write to QinetiQ now then and the ETPS etc and tell them they are talking bollocks as there is no hard evidence that what thye have discovered is true, eh?:ugh:

Knowing Silsoe - he is probably trawling the global search engine for low level engine failures in helicopters.

Please, please tell me you either accept the HVC for its credibility, or you totally ignore it because there is no evidence lying around?

Do you apply this way of thinking to the moon landing, or to the fact that the strathclyde helicopter may have been inside the HVC when it all went quiet?

C'mon Nigel - your chance to stand up and be counted as apro - do you believe what is stated about the HVC and promote it or do you tell everyone it's a myth? No harm will come to pilots (honest).:eek:

Gentlemen, it seems that only handbags at dawn will settle this. So will you meet on the asphalt or the grass?


i've long been persuaded by the asphalt camp, but it is surprising how dominant training cultures can be in creating an [almost] entire nation of pilots who will choose one over the other without really paying much attention to why.


One colleague missed the field during a night auto in the sim, by a mile or two, and justified the landing foray into the blackness with the grass preference argument. Yeah right.


Asphalt will also likely give you more ground effect at the bottom in a marginal situation.


Landing on a big runway in a small helicopter (and without rad alt) can make judging the flare height difficult. I'd go for a taxiway or apron, as someone else mentioned.




TT

Now, let's just put those two together and show some 'results';

HeliHub 18-Aug-15 N5743W Bell 206 Cresco, US-Iowa
HeliHub 24-Jul-15 C-FRAP Robinson R44 Strathroy, Canada
HeliHub 28-Mar-15 N130HA Hiller UH-12E Fresno, US-California
Helicopter spraying pesticides crashes near Gonzales | Local News - Home
http://www.witness.co.za/index.php?s...5B_id%5D=94307
HeliHub 30-Aug-12 F-GHYS Agusta-Bell 47G-2 Ajoupa-Bouillon, Martinique
Helicopter Loses Power, Pilot Lands in Burbank Orchard


What surprises me most though, is that Nigel hasn't heard of this one;

Hughes 269C
Owner/operator: Thirsk Aero Services Ltd
Registration: G-BKJR
C/n / msn: 44-0299
Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 1
Other fatalities: 0
Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Sower Hill Farm, near Catterick, North Yorkshire - United Kingdom
Phase: Manoeuvring (airshow, firefighting, ag.ops.)
Nature: Agricultural
Departure airport: Felixkirk Airfield, Thirsk, North Yorkshire
Destination airport:
Narrative:
ENGINE FAILURE WHILE CROP SPRAYING AT SOWER HILL FARM, NEAR CATTERICK, NORTH YORKSHIRE ON 13-07-1984

THE AIRCRAFT WAS CROP SPRAYING AT A HEIGHT OF ABOUT 4 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND. WHILE IN A TURN IT SUFFERED A PARTIAL POWER FAILURE AND THE PILOT WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN FLIGHT. ON IMPACT IT ROLLED ONTO ITS SIDE AND THE MAIN ROTOR BLADES HIT THE GROUND. (AIB BULLETIN 11/84).

Hmmmm - care to explain that one? I'm sure Nick Lappos' urban myths covered that topic some while ago.

Well, if you're sceptical Crab and Nick Lappos has dispelled the idea, then perhaps I'll be revising my thoughts there anon. But they currently go something like this:


In presenting a lower friction surface, asphalt will give a better inflow to the rotor and result in a bigger angle of attack for the same pitch position. The effect may not have time to develop, given rate of descent, flare height, the rapid transition from flare to settling and pulling pitch. But if there is a floating element to the end of the auto, I would hazard it could make its presence felt and help mitigate a bad outcome. A marginal aid to help save the day.


When trying to land with rotton right TR problems, more ground effect from asphalt will reduce the power requirement, and a lower pitch position is clearly more of what you want as you look for the right constellation to run on.


TT

Nigelh - I did warn you about threatening Silsoe like that - he is loathe to let go until he gets to the bottom of anything and your jibe about showing us all where these accidents are.....well you didnt just shoot yourself in the foot, you damn well blew your leg off.
But of course what that exercise of yours taught me (yet again) is that there are people out there just like you, who never ever think it will happen to them, even when they taunt others about accident statistics - they don't believe they exist, they don't beileve in anything other than their capabilities.
Unfortunately nigelh...and you'll have to sit down for this one:

YOU ARE HUMAN, just like the rest of us. You will react just like the rest of us, when the donk stops in the HVC you will come a cropper just like the rest of us. You aren't in the mil - consider yourself lucky, because the mil have an extra word in their vocabulary and it's called ATTRITION. And if you are ordered to carry out low level in the HVC manouevres - you do it come what may.

Civvies have the luxury of ignoring that and staying safer and possibly living longer.

PS: No amount of money makes a pilot safer or braver - remember that.
Sorry 'mate' you're just NORMAL :sad: And if you continue with that frame of mind..........in time, you will stoof.

TT - any scientific basis for the assumed difference in coefficient of friction between asphalt and grass? Any factor applied for the lentgh of the grass? Or the temperatures of the surfaces? Runways and roads seem to be designed to have a high coefficient of friction rather than a low one.

Whilst the proximity of the ground does affect the inflow angle I'm not sure that the friction (or lack of it) of the surface makes any difference to that.

I have heard many theories about how the type of surface affects the power required to hover but, other than recirculation, have never been able to measure any difference whatsoever and certainly none I would rely on in an emergency above and beyond that which the simple ground effect does bestow.

Nigel - as previously mentioned, operating in the HV curve and suffering an engine failure might not kill you but none of those events Sid has linked to have left the aircraft in any vague semblance of serviceability:ok: Wonder if the insurers coughed up!

nigelh; I'm sure like all of us here you have a lot of respect and admiration for Vertical Freedom. May I suggest that you look at his most recent pictures (1st Feb) taken during his instructor renewal, and observe what he has written at the bottom right of the whiteboard shown in the second picture :ok:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/483...ml#post9255491

I hate to disappoint you two but I don't think you make a case . 5 or 6 accidents over nearly 40 years almost all without injury ......AND you had to troll around at spraying accidents which I'm afraid are not the same . We were talking about flying 20-30ft over known good terrain ( which is what that guy was doing ) ..... Not flying 4ft above the ground in a fully MAUW crop sprayer with huge booms out each side flying often over very difficult terrain !!
So we still , over 40 years , cannot find loads of incidents where people have crashed and/or been hurt . I don't advocate blindly flying in the curve , in many instances a decent landing would be impossible ( say hovering downwind at 100ft for instance ) . I have now spoken to my best flying gurus and all of them agree with my stance . There are so many daft things people do and you have to pick on the most innocuous of the lot !! You keep bringing up instances of flying that were definitely not safe .... And I agree with you . I will not however agree that low level flying ( not 4ft or 6ft ...but for sake of argument 20-40 ft and 50-70 knots ). I think we should just agree to disagree on this one ....and like you TC , I have done loads of EOL from exactly this configuration ... I don't think I will be needing a new leg just yet !!
Ps. TC Why no reply to the points about real safety issues in areas that WILL kill you ....such as degrading viz , 180 instrument turns , spatial disorientation etc Surely these areas are far more important than this nonsense about flying at 30ft !!!! I can assure you we can find loads of instances where people have died in these scenarios and we don't even need Sid to go back 40 years .

Nigel, you do ignore the very obvious element in your 'safe EOLs' from 20-40' and 50 - 70 kts - you know it is coming.

Next time, close the throttle and wait 1 to 2 seconds before taking any recovery action - that will accurately simulate a real pilot's reaction time.

Will you die? probably not. Will you bend the aircraft? very probably - see the links from Sid for the pictures.

Yes, there are lots of other stupid things that pilots do and lots more 'dangerous' situations but this discussion has focussed on operating in the H-V curve and it is certainly not as 'safe' as you believe.

In the end it is your 'Ass, tin, ticket' (to quote Sasless) that is on the line so it is up to you but don't try to sell it to others as good and acceptable practice.:ok:

My final word .....!!! I agree 90% with you Crab . I never said it was as safe as flying high ..of course there is some reduction in overall safety . Is it dangerous , especially if flown by a competent pilot , No . Lastly the reaction to a power failure is very different to high altitude failure . When close to the ground your flare reaction will be the correct reaction just in the same way as if you hit a gust or shear . You are not reacting to the failure , and possibly may not have recognised it , but you will automatically maintain altitude in that split second .
People far more clever than me demonstrated this to me when crop spraying ...believe or don't believe !! If you are so concerned about safety ,why not get an answer to why we have done nothing about the real killer over the last 40 years . The same one that fixed wing have all but eradicated !!

Nigelh - you sure about the final word?

When your only donk stops, no amount of flaring will keep it airborne. She will eventually make contact with terra firma. AND if you are inside the HVC when it happens - and you react as joe average acts, you will either hit the ground fast or hard or both. All of which will almost certainly cause damage or death or both.
Do not dispute this - this is fact according to test pilots, not crop dusters.......perleeeeeze.:=

Nigelh - are you really sure about the last word.........................................

If you really want to talk about your other issues - start a new thread. We've totally hijacked this - apologies to the OP.

If they were that clever they probably wouldn't be crop dusting for a living;)

As TC points out, no-one is making this stuff up, it is the result of empirical testing by some very skilled pilots - believe or don't believe:ok:

"If they were that clever they probably wouldn't be crop dusting for a living"

Crab, that comment could be interpreted by some as showing you as an arrogant snob. Say it ain't so!

KJ - it ain't so - my point is that if you want the real ideas about the likely outcome of an engine failure at low level, would you trust a bunch of test pilots who have actually tested that outcome or a bunch of ordinary pilots who kid themselves their job isn't dangerous?

crab
Is this where you got the "wait 1 to 2 seconds from"?

If so I don't much trust the test pilots who think I would wait for that long to react!

R22 PPL students are certainly quicker than that!

The aircraft are certified under these conditions - 1 second delay for civil and 2 second delay for military.

Of course students are quick - they know it is coming.

You guys need to stop deluding yourselves about your reaction time to an engine failure when you are busy flying and trying to complete a task.

The first thing you will probably notice is a change in noise, long before your brain has started to process loss of Nr - even though it is happening quickly from the point of failure.

You might react automatically to a slight reduction in height - especially at low level where your cues are very good - and will probably react by raising the lever because you haven't realised why you are descending - there goes some more Nr.

By the time you actually diagnose the failure and react to it, the Nr is decaying rapidly and you are already moving further from the point where you can make a safe EOL. Any flare might help to recover the Nr but it isn't going to stop you descending unless you are plus of about 100 kts.

If you are very low level, your flare may well smack the tail in - adding to your problems.

It really isn't rocket science.

You wouldnt know that in light of some of the posts here.

Amazed that this horse is still kicking almost seven pages in!