A different take on Vuichard
 

So, normally whenever an instructor and I have done VRS recovery (both techniques) its always been at like 2,000' agl. Well recently, an instructor had me do it at 100'.

Now (of course) we didn't actually enter VRS at just 100', but he did have me do the side step recovery maneuver at that altitude while on a decently fast approach, saying that (in reality) that's more likely where this technique shines, as (of course) 100' is waaaay to low for the traditional one.

Anyway, it was a lot of fun, and I'm glad I finally got to experience a more practical way to practice this maneuver.:cool:

That would be a firm no thanks from me.

Instructing VRS, one thing I learnt is how unpredictable it is sometimes you couldn’t find it sometime you flirt with it and other times you got a hell of a ride.

I wouldn’t be messing with the incipient states at that height lest they become fully developed.

In my opinion VRS is quiet easily avoided and recovery is chasing the horse after it’s bolted.

So the Vuichard myth is still being taught.......and believed......

Is it a myth? I understood it was a valid technique, although not one which the CAA allow to be taught.

Surely this is a couple of days early for April Fool’s? Or is it Darwinism in waiting?

here is the previous discussion

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/62...ard-again.html

Hargreaves99 - it is a valid technique only as far as getting away from IVRS is concerned and is no more efficient or effective than either just pulling power or just putting the nose forward a bit to gain speed.

If you remove either the low speed or RoD from the VRS equation then you won't go from IVRS to VRS and any sensible action is likely to achieve that.

Vuichard's 'technique' takes the RoD out by pulling max power - the rest of the manoeuvre , rolling and yawing isn't necessary.

It works for early IVRS only and will not save you from full VRS.

That's why the CAA think it shouldn't be taught.

So on a decently fast approach you are nowhere IVRS or VRS - what, pray tell, is the point in the sidestep manoeuvre?

Did he pull max power and then add a boot-full of pedal? What did the Tqmeter say (or MAP gauge indicate).

My experience is that the 'add full power" -part of the sideways exit method is not necessary for the exit of VRS. It's there to have all the power in use at the moment the rotor exits the VRS. The exit itself can be accomplished with SOME power applied. I guess that different helicopters react quite differently to VRS, the R44 beeing quite stabel in 1500-2000 ft/min descend where adding max power even for extended period of time does not help. The R44 stays responsive to the cyclic and, here my experience ends, would probably come out of VRS with any long term cyclic input even regardless of collective position. With other helicopters your milage may vary, especially if the cyclic authority is compromised.

Interesting reactions. Some of you think we entered VRS at that height, some of you don't see the point of demonstrating without entering VRS, and some of you don't believe the maneuver is even legit, lol.

Anyway, the instructor was one of these old guys, who's been flying/teaching for years, if that makes any difference, lol.

So am I and I see no point in pretending to be in IVRS to show a fairly basic manoeuvre to get you out of IVRS

In my humble opinion i dont think Claude has ever been in VRS ! Having been there once I can assure you adding power to step out made it worse not better !!!!

So, I guess you feel the same way about, pretending to be in IIMC, just to show a fairly basic maneuver to get out, or pretending to have partial power loss, to show the fairly basic maneuver to get down with it, or pretending to have a 100' foot obstacle in front of you, to show the fairly basic maneuver to get over it?
:ok:

Or pretending to be a professional helicopter pilot just to create arguments on a website..............

And as it happens, in those three situations you are putting the aircraft at the height and speed of the scenario you are simulating - your Vuichard demo had the height but not the speed so please tell me what you learned from it.

Well, given that the most likely scenario for getting into VRS on approach when you think your airspeed is sufficient, is because you're in a tailwind, doing this simulation with a good amount of forward speed was correct for that type of situation.

Anyway, I learned what it would look like to perform that maneuver at low altitude with forward motion, intead of the usual OGE hover at 2,000' agl.

Sorry if this offends your sensibilities, pal, but I haven't done anything new in a helicopter in a very long time, so it was a nice break in the monotony.

I would not say it's a different take on Vuichard, it's more so the reverse. For instance, when longlining and moving your bucket into a dip site, if you feel any early stages of onset coming in, your natural reaction is to move the aircraft sideways. You have your head out of the door and that it the natural way to go - sideways. It's probably been used ever since we started lifting things on lines with our heads out the door.

Whether you believe in the Vuichard technique or not, learn how not to get in the situation and learn to identify the early stages of onset. It is good that you got exposure at a low height.

There is a video around somewhere of an incident where a Md900 fell off the top of a building in the Gold Coast in Australia whilst lifting air conditioning parts and got into VRS. The pilot used the side slip technique to gain control at the bottom of the 'fall'. He was/is a high time longline pilot from NZ/BC and would have no idea who Vuichard is, let alone how to spell it.

Don't quote me on this, but I've been under the impression that the idea of this Vuichard thing was to adapt the long-line technique for those of us who don't do long-lining.

Anyway, until this recent experience I'd never seen a practical reason for this technique, since I never really spend any time in the OGE hover environment.

Now I never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I always wondered about this accelerate forward to escape from IVRS/VRS as I was led to believe it was caused by descending into. a descending column of air caused usually be being slightly downwind and that pulling power only added to that problem.

Last time I checked most helicopters (smaller lighter aircraft as compared to the strongly powered behemoths that according to some can use power alone to escape....lowering the nose to accelerate gives a negative effective for ROC and demands more power which would add to the downward velocity of the air column.

The goal is to get out of the downward flow of air....and it seems intuitively obvious that the shortest direction to do that would be to either side rather than forward as in my mind the shape of that downward moving column of air is not going to be circular but rather more of an elliptical shape (longer fore and aft and narrower side to side).

Also...a turn into wind rather than extending your down wind approach with a higher ground speed close to the ground has undone many a helicopter and pilot.

I suppose the nice folks at the CAA don't care much for teaching Tail Rotor Emergency procedures using rotor rpm and collective when the pedals are not working as advertised either.

Does it matter what labels are affixed to the situation or recovery techniques or can we just talk about the effect of flight controls and applications of power, etc and not get hung up on the labels?

I can almost hear the near Gregorian Chant of Vulchard, Vulchard, .....GO!

The thing about pushing forward to get out of VRS, is that we're always practicing it with a vertical fall from an OGE hover, where pushing forward does move you clear.

In reality though, it'd probably be more like that video they show at the Robby Course where the R44 is on a downwind approach to a rooftop, gets into VRS, hits hard, slides across the roof, then gets dynamic rollover and falls to his death.

He had forward movement, so probably didn't realize he was in it until too low, but thing is, with his already forward momentum, would pushing the nose forward even get him out of VRS?

Seems no one ever talks about this when it comes to the "traditional" recovery technique.