Full down auto's ...
 

Well this will be somewhat drawn out and maybe disorganized, bear with me as thoughts on this are being dragged in 7 different directions :)

Ok, full down auto's.

Here in the U.S. it is not usually taught until you are going for CFI.
An interesting thread over at JH has me thinking and rethinking ...

I can see that with each auto being different, and adding all the variables involved in toughing down off airport that insurance is a major reason for this not being taught earlier in the US sequence, but at the same time I wonder if I'd actually put it all together if I had to touch down.

Fri night I returned to the cockpit after a 3 week absence. One reg approach and one steep were great enough that my CFI that evening wanted to move to autos and so we could get in some 180's too. (I really only need to polish up autos for precision, 180's and pinnacle op's to be ready for the checkride at this point ....)

I had a blast, and I know if I get to the flare and recovery, that in the full down situation, I would likely transition in thought (as I haven't done full downs yet) to the hover auto as I leave myself at that spot at the leveling off point of my flare.
At least I'm 100% confident that I'll enter and glide down ok, flare might be high, but I can work on that.

But unless I actually did one, I'm torn between thinking I could, and knowing I could, etc.

I don't want to be in the "rote" method, flaring and then possibly recovering when there is nothign to recover hehe ... Or just being able to know what it looks like, feels, etc. Get the full down experience.

It is likely (I haven't asked yet, but intend to) that my CFI's might not be able to demo it unless I was going for CFI, but I wanted thoughts here. I'm also hesitant about it, as amajority of mishaps in that category have been due to those variables one cannot control after touchdown (I may be wrong, but you know what I mean, the thought is "Gee, I don't want to kill myself learning to not kill myself :) )

I know you all do them even for PPL right?(Whirly, I'm so envious that you have done them ! :) )
so I know it will be towards that end, etc.

Marc

------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 15 May 2001).]

Hi RW, My Cfi explained , did it for me and then followed me through with full Auto's right down to Terra Firma, then on the test to gain my ticket had to do it for the test man, then again full Auto to run on at the first Annual check and again at my next annual, also done several since in 22,s and 44's but must add always with Cfi's, didn't like it at first but afterwards gave me a little feeling of one more bit of experiance hopefully never to be needed, but I know what it feels like, a little puckering to say the least! thing is in the UK most of the fields are wet and slippy, that helps with run on.

It's company policy here to do them, but many in Canada use power-on recoveries instead (and even they cause problems with torque spikes if you're not careful).

Mind you, they tend to do them to hard standing so you don't hit gopher holes (doing it to runways was definitely a walk on the wild side in UK in the 80s!).

While we're nearly on the subject, what's the thinking on closing the throttle in the event of a real engine failure? I was taught to secure the engine (assuming you checked and it isn't running), but some companies here say to keep it open just in case you get a little help from it and so you don't compound one emergency with another. Now, the thing flies differently in a real auto, and my preference is for the former (i.e. shut, assuming you get the practice) - any thoughts?

Phil

[This message has been edited by paco (edited 15 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by paco (edited 15 May 2001).]

Hi RW,

I think there is a lot of misinformation talked about engine off landings (as they are called in the UK), as you probably know you have to demonstrate one in your test for your PPL here.

like all these kind of things the only people who are actually any good at them are instructors, and only because they get a lot of practice.

I think the american system of not doing them leads to a sort of mystique they they are very hard in some way, wheras I think that they are a bit of an art and it is all about style and using the correct technique,
what I do in a R22 is

1. during the descent keep the speed on at 65 knots
2.RPM steady top of the green
3.Close the throttle into the detent
4. about 40 feet nudge the cyclic aft to start the flare
5. hold the flare to see how it is going
6. when you get closer to the ground, develop the flare to get rid of all that speed and rate of descent
7. at the critical moment, level it and raise the lever.

it is sort of a 2 stage flare, made easier by the bit where you hold the flare as this enables you to vary things if you started the flare a little early or a little late.

I dont beleive that if you can do them to the hover that you can do them to the ground, they are a different skill in my opinion.

I have done hundreds of them and have so far got away with them, there are 2 groups of instructors, those who have messed them up and those who have yet to mess them up.

when you get the hang of them it gives you much greater confidence in your self which doing them to the hover just doesnt.

most of the training accidents seem to be when 1 or more of the following conditions are not met.

1. wind at least 10 knots
2. wind more or less straight down the runway
3. less than 10 gallons of fuel on board (R22)

every opportunity you get do them (always with a high time instructor) many low time instructors are allowed to do them when they are not ready and are a risk to themselves and you !

on another point, I read that in the US that you dont have to do confined area operations to get your PPL, so I wondered if there was anything else missing from the FAA PPL that is in the JAR PPL as we have already mentioned engine off landings.

be careful out there !

------------------
elpirata

[This message has been edited by elpirata (edited 15 May 2001).]

Paco,

If I had partial power, I wouldn't close throttle, really depends on what is happening. But for most instances in a recip, you lose it, secure it.

EP,

I always considered the auto a performance maneuver, you have to have everything within desired tolerances if you are going to pull it off.

I agree that if I can get to the hover, it isn't like the real thing, I'm going to see if I can get into it with one of our experienced CFI's.

Heck my comm checkride isn't even my next big big fear, it would be doing my first auto (180 or atraight in) solo hehe ....

I'd have to see what the JAR has for maneuvers, though that may be the only difference, pinnacles and confined area's are on the commercial.

(I asked my examiner if we could do the paperback version of a comm checkride, let's go over to pompano, no governor, and you kill my power and I'll do a 180 auto into the confined area. If I can't do that :) )

I fully intend to stay careful where the full down's are concerned, would like to start with them to a hard surface. But if i can get to do them I would want to add it to be something to stay on top of. (something insurance and skid costs may prohibit, the former more than the latter)

Amazing how we don't have to do them, yet have more freedom flying low where it would have to come into play if something happened? (assuming you could were outside the HV dead man zone)

My first 180's last friday were halfway decent, didn't make my spot, but i picked a heck of a day to do it, 20-25 knot winds that evening. And i need to be more agressive in my turn, but my CFI says I'm doing well, each segment is ok, have to tie it all together now.

Marc

------------------
Marc

I presume the question of whether or not to practice a potentially machine-bending maneuver like a full-down auto is similar to spin training here in the US. It comes down to the difference betwee the number of accidents, fatalities, etc that are caused by training, vs the number that happen due to inadequate training. I've heard that the number of accidents during spin training, for example, was more than the number of accidents caused by inadequately trained (in spins) pilots, so it was decided that it wasn't worth the risk.

I too would like to practice autos to the ground. I actually had the chance to do so, on my PP checkride! The examiner, I presume, figured everything was under control so he just urged me to take it all the way down. The wind was across the runway so we just did a skidding touchdown across the hard runway. I hadn't prepped for it, but it wasn't so bad. As has been noted above, we didn't get into a zero groundspeed hover so it wasn't much like a normal hover auto. Much more like a run-on landing than any hover autos I've done though. Educational though :)

I might be missing the point here entirely but, are we talking about a simple autorotation with the throtle(s) rolled to idle or completely to shut-off?

If we are talking about Idle touch downs, then what is the problem? If we are talking about flamed out intentionally, well I guess that would depend on your competence at Idle!

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

You guys are so technical...........I think this same thread is going on (www.justhelicopters.com) Forum.
Beyond that do any of you remember the fun times. Like in the military when Helicopters and Pilots were expendable.........(or the 50-75 ship formations)
Doin Beers to see how long you could strech a UH-1 auto down a runway at night. Longest Spark trail won at the club......Or better yet close 180s in the Cobra. So tight you judged the landing spot out of the top of the cockpit in your turn......
S-H-I-T those were fun times, women loved ya and the booze was cheap.
Others will also add that Green Tracers were not "Made in the USA"

RW, I get the impression that full-downs aren't taught in the R22, but that doesn't apply to other ships. I suspect that because the rotor-inertia is so minimal, the safety margin is also minimal. The timing has to be pretty accurate, and it wouldn't be too hard to prang the ship. I think your idea about the insurance is correct. I've had two business trips out of my area to major cities where I went to flight schools strictly for a new experience. At the first, I flew a 300CB (my PPL was in R22). We did full-downs and there wasn't much to it, because there was simply more time to set it all up before touching the ground. At the other school, I flew an R22 with a very high-time R22 instructor who was extremely comfortable in the ship (are you thinking "complacent" here?). We were going to do some full-downs but ran short on time, the airport was too busy (John Wayne at 1700) and I felt lousy from some bad airport food (no, it really WAS bad, I heaved it all up a couple of hours later). I understand that the Robinson factory safety course does touchdown autos. Also, my instructor tells me he did autos from 40 knots at the school (that must be as tricky as energy-management gets).

[This message has been edited by rotorfan (edited 16 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by rotorfan (edited 16 May 2001).]

Hi rotorfan, I think the R22 has had a factory warning about chopping the throttle on Autos and practice EOls , something about the sprag clutch was found to be cracking and breaking up, leaving you with no ability to re-engage at a lower level, that could ruin a good day out!.
My Regards

RW-1,

I think the question was asked, were you talking about touchdown autos at idle or shutting the engine down totally?

If the latter, nothing to add as I've only had one catastrophic engine failure, whilst sitting on the pad - gotta be happy with that.

If the former, then I can speak with some authority having done a lot of them. They are great fun and very confidence-building, but an organisation that does them regularly will have a significant number of stinger strikes (from touches to full-on digging them into the ground) or heavy, bouncy landings with the associated possibility of airframe damage. I never really cocked one up badly, but have had the odd nasty arrival with associated heartbeat waste.

This is also fine if you're not paying for the repairs, as I wasn't (well, indirectly as a taxpayer), but not really an economic proposition for the aircraft owner.

Anyway, if you get the chance, get a few into you, but there is a point of diminishing returns where if you do too many for the sport of it, just to improve the finesse part, you may have an expensively embarrassing result.

The talk above of fatalities is probably a bit overly dramatic, but as I say, it's fairly easy to bend the aircraft.

Hot tips - in a fast run-on, when you're bouncing along, freeze the cyclic in the middle; don't be tempted to pull it back instinctively in an attempt to slow yourself down. At low revs, the disc has bugger-all solidity in plane.

2. If you're doing a zero speeder touchdown, or close to, once you have levelled to the hover attitude, wait until you feel like your skids are 6 inches off the ground or so before you start using up your collective. Otherwise, the temptation is to 'milk' it all the way down, and you run out of cushioning power at the bottom.

Hope this is useful.

Elpirata
You mentioned less than 10 galls of fuel for auto's.I would have thought the more weight the better.Auto's when solo are a no no as discussed in previous threads because of lack of weight particularly if pilot is light.
Comments please.
Thanks

Well, a lot fo great info for me ... Thanks all.

I'm talking about idle, not killing it.

Rolling off into detent and then taking it to terra firma.

I suppose there is a bit of fear in me about it, no more so than due to not having done one yet more than anything else.

Arm makes a good point, if it's easy to prang it, then the number i may do will likely be less than I'd like. I'm just thinking the time is right to begin them. After I get my 180's down to where I can get to my spot, that's what I intend to learn next if allowed.

Key reason is it would give me a boost for when I'm taking friends on rides, and I would feel better knowing that if it happens, it's something I have done already, instead of wondering what I may do after bottoming out.

Yes, I brought the thread over from JH, I thought it worthy of our attention.

------------------
Marc

Don't practice them solo because there is only one set of eyes looking at the a/c and its too easy to miss something. RRPM can easily be built up in the flare.

10 Gallons is better for the practice to allow the maximum cushion. The inertia in the rotor that is available is a function of RRPM. A/C inertia is a function of weight. Minimize the weight while practicing and you can maximize the effectiveness of the cushion.

Its easier to do them in the wind becuase you aren't slowing the a/c to a '0' airspeed. Therefore less energy is expended getting slowed down and more ETL is available during the cushion.

An honest instructor will admit that even if you have done a lot of them it is easy to make mistakes if you haven't done them recently.

Don't overdramatize the auto to touchdown. The important part is to make the spot and work the flare, do it and you live. The rest is to help save the machine.

As an aside, why does Robinson want the governor turned off in the practice autos? Power recoveries are that much harder without it to help coordinate.

You absolutely have to know how to perform an autorotation to the conclusion. I trained in the US and full-downs/EOL's were always talked about in hushed tones as though they are something to be feared.

Since working as an FAA CFI I became a CAA FI and taught guys from zero hours to take autos to the ground. The difference in the ability is, of course, quite marked and mainly because the CAA students didn't approach auto's with this mystery attached.

You should definitely approach a CFI cleared to do full downs and do as many as you need to be able to do them unassisted. Try them to grass or runway, zero run on with some wind (+10 knots) or with a slight ground run if calmer. When I went out to try some full downs with students I would look to be fairly light and at least 10 knots of wind. If on the appproach you're not straight in by 300 feet, with airspeed at least 55 knots and RPM in the green then power smoothly up and try again. The danger lies in trying to force a not so good looking auto to the ground. Nothing lost by aborting and going around.

Good luck, they are loads of fun when done with the right instructor. For your own peace of mind you need to be proficient.

Gov

Well, I'd never done autos down to the ground for my PPL, apart from having one demonstrated on my GFT - I think you're supposed to in the UK, but seems not all schools do. I feel a lot more confident about the whole thing now I have, though I haven't done one unassisted yet. I've heard the whole thing about if you make it to the flare you'll survive - but it's not very convincing somehow. More importantly, I didn't realise how much forward airspeed you could still have safely on landing, till we'd done a few.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

WhirlyBird,

Please, Please dont take this the wrong way. Am I correct in thinking that you are doing your CPL(H) at the moment ? I cant believe that you havent done one to the ground on your own yet! On my PPL H GFT, I did 3 of differing types , not really because the examiner needed me too but we were having so much fun. Once you really get into them youll be surprised were you can EOL into, although it does depend on the machine, the one Im flying at the moment descends like a set of car keys with the engine off! (2800 FPM ROD @70 -80 Knots and around 3400 @ 40 knots figures from memory.)

If the school is not willing to do EOLs go somewere that is ! Im surprised at RW 1 saying they very rarely do them in the states as when I did a conversion course at the manufacturers in the US, they had us doing EOLs 180s back to the spot from 450 feet, that really was worth doing as the amount I learned was incredible. Turning ,flaring, leveling and cushioning all at once, makes you sweat!

Please dont think I am slating your abilities Whirly, I am not, I am just very surprised that someone who is doing a CPL hasnt done EOLs, is this the norm or not?

Regards

HoverBover



[This message has been edited by hoverbover (edited 17 May 2001).]

HB,

Ahh, but at the manufacturer's course, your with high time manufacturer pilots, not the run of the mill CFI at the flight school. And most flight schools here inthe us likely don't do it (in the robbie) until you go for CFI for reasons listed previously by various posters.

I'm not knocking everyone else, but to give example I heard at the robie safety course your instructor will take you around the pattern at 90% Nr to demonstrate the lack of cyclic response (At least that is what I have heard)

It's going to be an interesting conversation at the hangar when I arrive Sat morning I'm sure hehe ...


Marc


------------------
Marc

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 17 May 2001).]

HoverBover,

At the moment I'm hours building and doing the CPL(H) ground exams. I can't do the CPL modular flying course until I have a minimum of 155 hours (got about 130 now), and passed the ground exams.

What's the norm? I wish I knew. I recently changed to a different school, as there were a few things I wasn't happy with. Since I changed, I've discovered more things I shouldn't have been happy with. I suspect that to some extent I wasn't taken seriously, possibly because I'm female. But I can't be sure, and I can't be sure that's the reason. To be fair, I dithered about whether I was really going commercial - and didn't take it that seriously myself until I realised I'd just passed most of the nav exams (I think I probably failed Radio Aids for the second time yesterday though http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif ) So maybe it's no-one's fault, and maybe I wasn't short-changed; I just don't know. What I do know it that I'm becoming a lot more wary, and less inclined to trust people just because they have a good reputation and thousands of hours. Is that good or bad?

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

when I trained in Canada, the CFI (who was a high time CFI) said that he wanted students to be good at the entry, which is where it all starts going tohell if your worried about the touch down. Also it was company policey to not take it to the ground . when I did turbine transition the CFI couln't believe it when I said (with heart thuding) "that was my first, full on". The low inertia rotor characteristics of the robbie are of concern of course, in the 206 it seemed like there was nothing to do . I have always felt that I would like a lot more traing in "full on's". An Aussie freind of mine says he just does them all the time in the bush to keep sharpe.

[This message has been edited by advancing_blade (edited 17 May 2001).]

Whirly,

Engine off landings are a required part of the syllabus for the PPL in the UK, and that does not mean having 1 demonstrated to you.

If you havent had a go at them yourself there is something wrong as YOU are supposed to demonstrate one on your GFT (now LST).

many instructors are not cleared to do them, but they should put you with someone who is,
for that 1 lesson, before I send someone solo, we will always have done an hour of engine off landings before the solo day.

a school that no longer exists at gloucester got into trouble with the CAA, for not teaching them as it is a prerequisite that the syllabus is covered and they are in the syllabus.

during your hourbuilding, I would recomend that you reguarly practice all the elements of the ppl syllabus, as in the CPL general handling test, all the same things are there only to a higher standard.

hope this helps


------------------
elpirata

Thanks elpirata,

That all makes a lot of sense. I thought that was the case with autos, but only found out recently. I gather the school I was at has now been told to do autos to the ground; I think this was due to something I said, all unknowing, in a conversation with someone from the CAA - long story. If I'm responsible I'm very pleased about it - should have happened long ago.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.

Whirly - You should try and do enough so they become second nature (particularly on the Robbo) and get to a point where they actually become fun (dare I use that word). During my AFIC course I spent one entire lesson of 1.1hrs doing 15 non stop engine offs. I had trouble wiping the huge cheesy grin off my face for hours. Even during my PPL training, I remember finishing most of the last half dozen dual trips with an engine off or two (weather/fuel/weight etc permitting). However, you must, must, stay current at doing them.

Interesting thing is that when you've learnt on the Robbo and move on to say the 206, the engine offs are non events - plenty of time to brush your teeth, have a wash, comb your hair (as my old instructor/examiner would say) with none of the dramatic lever adjusting/pulling - its all very much more sedate.

Good Luck
Balance!


[This message has been edited by Balance! (edited 17 May 2001).]

Pretty scary information being passed on here. Pilots flying helicopters who have never smacked the Asphalt..
Im sure its a matter of economics, but I can guarantee, that for those who havent and someday have too, its going to cost somebody much more..
Thanks Uncle Sam, for letting me make sparks......

I think that at least one flying training operation in the UK abandoned their Bell 47's for R22's.

The 47's spent a major part of their life performing full auto's. They were operated for years with very few instances of any kind of damage. I believe the R22 fleet came and went very rapidly, after they kept falling apart when subjected to the exact same training environment.

Anyone care to elaborate?

As an instructor in the UK it really worries me that some have done very few full EOL. They are not difficult to perform in most machines.

If you have not done them or done limited ones find a school that will teach you.

Remember this manouevre is the one that will save your life !! Yes I know if you get it to a flare with little or no forward airspeed at the correct height you can bring the engine back in. BUT doing it to the ground gives you a lot of confidence not only that you can do it and get it right but the aircraft can do it as well !!

Have a safe one

I want Balance's cheezy grin too ! :)

------------------
Marc

Here's a new angle we could exploit then. Instead of all the UK PPL's zipping off to the US for cheaper prices, we could entice all the US PPL's to come here for EOL's. Who's up for it?

I agree all students should be taught to perform EOL's and demonstrate them to a competent standard, however What are the thoughts on the following:

How many R22 Accidents in the UK have resulted in fatalities from getting the last bit of an EOL wrong? - None as far as I am aware.

Compare that to Fatalities where they did not get the lever down within 0.9 seconds after the engine quit. There must be quite a few by now.

Any views?

Good evening Balance, you point out the Eol in the 206 is a non event, I must agree with you compared to a R22, but when you practice in the 206Eol, you still have some input from the Turbine, could you tell me is it still relativly unhurried with a absolute failure of power, or is it like the same sort of speed that you get in the R44 which has a similar sized blade system, but is a lighter a/c, I hope you see what I mean!

Luckily, I'm unable to answer your question, but I'll ask my more experienced colleagues and report back..

I have had the opportunity to auto our 206 once, my chief pilot stated if done right one could do an auto and your pax may not even notice the glide difference, but I question that statement ....

I felt as if there were more time available. Would that be because the 206 rotor system is not as "high-inertia" as the Robbies in terms of loss of RPM ?
(I might be off here, asking though)



[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 21 May 2001).]

RW-1
"Would that be because the 206 rotor system is not as "high-inertia" as the Robbies in terms of loss of RPM?"

I think you might find the reason is the exact opposite. (Warning: I'm only a lawyer! :) )

It also depends which Robbie.
There is a huge difference between the R22 and the R44 which has much heavier blades.

RW-1
The R-22 has a low-inertia rotor when compared to virtually all other helicopters. Low inertia means that 'I', the moment of inertia about its axis of rotation, is low. Mathematically, 'I' comes from integrating the mass times the distance squared (as you may recall, moment = mass * arm. This is similar.) In the helicopter rotor this means taking the rotor and thinking of it as a whole bunch of little pieces. Picture cutting many 1" slabs of the blade all the way from the root to the tip. If you add up the individual polar moments (mass of each times its distance from the axis of rotation squared, in this case the rotor hub), you get the moment of inertia I=mr^2. Since the mass of the rotor of the R22 is low, the moment of inertia is low. Various other helicopters put tip weights in the blades, out at the ends where the distance (remember, I = m * R^2) is great. This drastically increases their moment of inertia.

Now, recall that the rotor is absorbing power in the form of torque, which at a constant speed (rpm) means that the aerodynamic torque acting on the rotor is equal to the torque produced by the engine. Now, if the engine stops, the air is still acting against the blades but the engine isn't opposing this torque. Now the 'momentum' of the blades is all that keeps them turning. If they were weightless then air drag would stop them instantly (all assuming you don't lower the collective where effectively drag is made zero or negative in the rotational axis), but if they were made of lead or solid DU :) then they would spin for ages. To keep down the overall weight of the blades/helicopter, they try to use as little weight as possible, and optimize its effect by putting it at as far from the rotational axis as possible--that why you get 'tip weights'.

Here's an analogy. Consider a car is driving along at a constant speed: If the engine stops the car will coast to a stop. If there are two cars next to each other with the same external dimensions (ie, same air drag) but one weighs much more, which will go further? The heavier one will because it has more kinetic energy (KE = mass * velocity^2). Now, if we have a motorcycle and a bike, where the motorcycle has more frontal area, but is also heavier, its not so clear--the greater weight of the motorcycle might take it further or its larger size may stop it quicker due to air drag. In the Robbie, the blades and everything attached is very 'light' yet the air still acts on it. Consider it as a normal sized bike that's extremely light. If it's going along and you stop pedalling, it'll stop pretty quick--much quicker than others with extra weights attached.

Well, sorry for the long-winded response. I'm sure I might have made a mistake somewhere, as I don't have my books here, but that's the basic idea.

You know, it was one of those days yesterday ... after I went back and reread it I knew I had it backasswards.

On a lighter note though, I received 30K into my money market from my family to wrap up my commercial and maybe even get my required flight time to nab my CFI. Things might be picking up. . .



------------------
Marc

A posting above reminds me of a perfect example in Blade Weight. The AH-1S had the 540 Rotor system with the old and heavy blades and was then modified for the Kaman Blades. The difference was such that it was extremely important to know that difference in an emergency. Example a 6" cross section of the old blade weighed, I dont know, maybe 15 lbs., wheras the newer Kaman blade, same cross section was only a couple of pounds. That as an example of total weight reduction.
Difference in flight was like night and day for emergencies. Power off with the heavier blade, slow rotor decay, with the new light one, needle is going down right now. It became very interesting.

Flying Lawyer
" ... only a lawyer" eh?

Didn't stop your answer being spot-on!
:)

I did my training in the u.s. and could not get the cfi to demonstrate a touchdown auto. since then i have autorotated many different types hundreds of times onto the ground. in all types exept the r22 autos are just another manouvre and are easier to do than a precision approach in some machines. the robbie is a problem though as each auto is different even down to the fuel burn between attempts,or a little fast or a little slow, too much flare, too little flare, a massive ammount of variables. they take a bit of practice to nail and require constant practice to maintain a reasonable competency level. the fact is in a real life situation if you can maintain speed till flare height and do a reasonable flare to slow down you and your pax should walk away unscathed, after all that is the only reason to do an auto.we also dont have the good fortune to always have an airport under us. what if you are over the forest or the sea or rough terrain. helicopter engines are reliable to the point that most auto training is a waste of time.in the case of the r22 the instructor is doing most of the work and is on the controls, if he isn't he is a brave man. more robbies are written off during auto training at schools than any other accident type. wire strikes kill more pilots than any other problem yet we don't string wires across the runway and practice missing them. fuel starvation is another problem but we don't practice till the light comes on and try to make it home.go and get an endorsement in a proper helicopter and the instructor would be only too happy to do an auto i'm sure

------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow

I learnt to fly helicopters in Australia. The school didn't teach full down autos, but I was demo'ed one.

Came back to the UK, had some fun doing them myself since it's a required part of the syllabus.

I felt comfortable with the fact that in Oz I could at least take the Robbie close enough to the ground and then get it slow enough to survive. Now I feel sort of comfortable that I'd even save the airframe, but that's not my priority.

Can't speak with any authority on R22 etc. I'm X-Navy (Royal) & have done full downs in Gazelles & Seakings! A must in terms of experience!
However since going 'civvy' haven't been allowed to do one at all!
I feel this is V.Bad. I fly Police machines & the places we put ourselves makes me think the more practice the better!
Unfortunately commercial operators will undertake practices not required by law, especially when they pose a risk to airframes!
If you can talk someone into doing them...DO THEM!!